I don't see how Stardock's license restriction is anything beyond preventing a resale market, burying this restriction in the EULA

GC2's EULA is a page and a half long and about as plain-english as EULAs get. The clause in question is the second point under "YOU MAY NOT DO:" and simply states that you cannot resell your serial. Nowhere does it say you cannot resell the physical media and box (which allows the possessor to install and play v1.0 with no serial--Stardock is not obligated to provide anything beyond that).

The prohibition on selling your serial is simply because Stardock's policy is to not transfer serials between accounts. Once a serial has been registered, it is permanently bound to that account. So unless you give away that as well, your serial becomes useless to anyone but you once you've used it.

I can understand the attractiveness of advertising it as anti-piracy. However, it appears meaningless when analyzed. People who can update simply provide the patch data they download to others.

It is not meaningless at all. The patches require activation, so it's pointless to redistribute the files. The post 1.0 versions of the game executable will simply not run without a valid activation record present.

Read my post just above.

Okay this entire registry concept makes sense here, but talking in thoery here, would it then be thoeretically plausabile to simply register the game under a dummy e-mail (like Rokingamer@yahoo.com) then provide the e-mail and serial when reselling it?)

IF the entire purpose of the activation is to prevent piracy, why not simply let the user transfer their single copy to another user providing they inform stardock they're relinquishing their rights to the property to person X who can then activte the key under his account.

On a side note: What happens when you wish to change your e-mail address? (due to identity theft, spam, abuse, etc..) You contact stardock and let them know you're changing it from addy a to addy b and they update their files free of charge right? Can't you make it possible to do the same thing if you're selling the game?

(changing e-mails is a very real possibly when moving out of state or leaving college since service providers often provide their own domain specific e-mails with their serivce which you lose when you change providers. ex: xxxxxx@charter.net etc..)

Makes sense actually, if the seller is praticing un ethical business (keeping the key while selling the discs) then she should be the one held responsible.

I had an illegal copy of the game, loved it, got read hissy cos it was buggy.

thought balls to it, 'get on eeeeebay', bid on a copy and paid 14 gbp for it, sat happy knowing that soon, a legit copy would drop thru my door.

While waiting for it to arrive, I started reading the forums and came across this thread, then my heart sank.

Low and behold my copy from ebay arrived, I installed it, tried to reg it, and it didnt work. I was pretty miffed.

So I bought the game online for the 45 dollars or what ever it was, (about 23gbp)

So I now had a copy from ebay, 14 quid, and a legit serial number from galciv2.com another 23 quid. Oh well, the games worth it, I love it and play it when ever i get the chance.

But the story doesnt end there. I emailed the guy who sold me the ebay copy and asked him to transfer his stardock account to me. It took a while, but finally he did, meaning I now have two accounts, two serial numbers. Oh joy! What can I do with two accounts?

anyway, anyone wanna buy a copy with a legit account


:---Stardock - you sell new serial numbers at a discount? can I have partial refund?

-TAz

I have a few comments to add to this discussion.

#1) Prevent retialers from reselling the game
Go after major used game resellers. In the very least, alert them that people cannot use the used copy of the game to full effect. Recommend they not buy/sell the used game. Recommend they refund people's money. Better yet, insist they not buy/sell used copies. Perhaps threaten them with legal action for EULA infringement. Single individuals are not worth pursuing legally, but retailers are. They have lots to lose.

I am confident that half.com will not allow people to list your product if they are aware of this.

Basically, innocent people who want to play your game are being affected. While it is unfair for people to blame Stardock for other's crimes, it still reflects poorly on Stardock and I think you would want to do something about it. Alienating a potential life long customer over a preventable issue like this seems silly.

#2) Clearly label your product, raise consumer awareness.
Your licensing for product is different from other PC software out there.
Good for you. Please put clear labelling on your box. "You are purchasing a software license. Software license non-transferrable. Used product not fully functional." or something to that effect.
It may also behoove you to point out to people during installation that they cannot sell the game once they install it. Then you should back that up by pursuing retailer compliance.
You could put a license certificate inside the box a-la-Microsoft that says very clearly, "non-transferrable" on it.

#3) Be fair.I think you have a great idea to allow people who have bought a used copy of the game to get a license for a reduced price. But your reduced price is more than half the retail price of the game. That seems somewhat high considering the consumer already paid money for the used box and CD's. It is potentially higher than the $40 retail in stores.

its buggy as hell and I remember playing it, having to save every 3 turns or so because it was likely to crash at any moment. the more I updated my game, the more stable it has become.

That doesn't make the game buggy. That means it wasn't compatible with your computer. Over time, , particularly with 1.1, we did things like throttle the GPU so that over-heating and the like were no longer an issue.  That doesn't make the game "buggy".

If a product you purchase at the store doesn't work for you, you return it. The retailer should then return the product to the manufacturer. 

Often times, there is no ideal solution, only various imperfect solutions to choose from.  Most people prefer not to have to keep a CD-ROM in the drive or mess with annoying copy protection schemes.   That was the goal of our system.  The downside is that our mechanism - giving customers an account, means that handling returns is more complex.

I gave my Battlefield 2 to me brother, he registred new account on a different pc without any problem. If you guys like the way stardock is cheating you then it is your problem. It is legal to sell used copy of games and this is why major sellers on the market do it, because they have the right too. This is stupid to force people to buy new stuff when some people got a used copy that they dont use because they tired of the game or they just dont like it. Stopping people from selling used game is against the basic rules of liberty and even capitalism. This game is the only one on the market that totally prevent you to sell it to someone. If I want, I will well my Half-Life 2 account with the CD and everything related and it will work fine to register a new one, you just have to reset your account and give the info to the guy you are selling it to.

In the end, the fact still that stardock abuse his right and is going against the suposed market laws most of people agree with here.

It's more than abusing, it is forcing people to throw their old stuff to garbage instead of giving them a second life.

That's ridiculous.

EULA law's are nothing if you dont live in USA so sorry for you americans, but here the consumers protections laws are much more stronger and efficient, and I will say more intelligent.

As I said, most of other games do not have thoses problems, and yes it is really hard to pirate half-life 2 or the mod that are related, but it is legal to sell your cd-key to someone when you tired of the game, and since you sell the cd-key, the seller has the obligation to reset the account or to give it to the buyer and then he can make the modification.

I bought a collector edition game, used, but in great condition, almost new in fact.

the guy was cool so he decided to switch his email and entered my email as the one registered and he gave me he password and nickname so I was able to change it.

That guy didnt liked the game, and he was happy to sell it, and I was happy to buy it 10$ cheaper than I would pay for a new one.

The game was unused, so why stoppping people from selling the game ???

I'm playing a used version and that one got a second life in my hand !!!

This thread is a touch amazing to me. I normally wouldn’t reply to this thread, but I find the conversation a touch uneven and wanted to put my two cents down on the other side of the scale.

I find the copy restrictions on GalCiv II to be less constricting than the standard. The standard is physical CD’s with copy protection. I hate that. I’m sure I’m not the only person who has purchased a legit copy of something, installed it and then had to go out and find a cracked version without the copy protection to get it to run on my computer because of the *!~!@#!!% copy protection.

Stardock has effectively loosened the standards. You technically can’t resell the license according to Stardock, but I don’t hear them objecting to those who have transferred their Stardock accounts to someone else. They are in a large degree trusting in the innate sense of honesty in their consumers. If you buy a used game and the previous owner fails to give you everything (like the account/valid serial number), that is a problem between you and the seller. But even here Stardock will bail you out for a less than full cover price (inviting some potential abuse I might add). Whatever the local law may say anywhere this is quite reasonable.

This is a different model, so there might need to be some adjustments.

Some sticker/statement on the box stating that each box comes with a unique registration serial number and that a used or opened copy should not be purchased is a good idea, along with a slip of paper in the box that says resellers are legally bound to return to the manufacturer any returned copies. This would help address the retailer who just re-shrinkwraps a returned copy (and be a really fun excuse to rip a retailer for crappy practices) and provide a heads up to anyone who may be considering buying a used copy. This is the only legit complaint (and a really good suggestion) I have seen so far. I also suspect that if you buy a registered copy “new” from a retailer that Stardock would probably make it right with an e-mail and some proof of purchase…Faxed receipt or something.

Please note I am not speaking on behalf of Stardock.  Any views below are my own.

Actually I think it would.

If you buy the software from a physical store in say the UK, you are not buying the software from Stardock.  You are buying from the store & as such your contract under UK law is with that store.

Likewise, if you buy a second hand copy from person X, your contract is with person X, so the purchaser has no link with Stardock.

The game itself works fine if you sell it to someone else so there really is no problem here.  Stardock are allowing you to resell exactly what you purchased.

Personally I would charge a standard fee of say $40 to transfer a serial from account to account.  Nothing says any transfer has to be free.

If someone sells their game, including account, Stardock should allow this.

if a player feels they need to quit the game, give up their account with stardock, and never play the game again....


as long as the new owner has the game (boxed with cds and manuals etc) and the access to download the updates, why shouldnt stardock support them?


if they love the game, they may buy dark avatar.


if you buy a used copy of the game, and you can prove you have the orginal material, i.e photo etc.... stardock should disable the old account (stop the bugger who sold the game from playing metaverse etc) and bring the new user into the fold.

If you buy the game, register the game, sell the game, then up yours, you cant play with the latest updates no more.

What i've said above might be a little un-understandable, i'm drunk, but i think i have a valid point.