Used game sales = impossible (see EULA)

I'm more interested in what's going to happen with the next guy. The serial key is still registered to you, doesn't that mean whoever buys the used copy of the game will be cut off from patchs and the like?

No you dont have to buy the game back, but if someone buys that used game they won't be able to update it without also purchasing a new serial number from Stardock because of the way they distribute patches through Impulse.

Well it's just a mess regardless of how I look at it. I sold it to them for really cheap because I just don't play the game at all anymore. Of course, the sticker they put on it is much higher ($20) than I got for it. But I feel awful because the next guy is gonna get screwed big time if I can't get that serial key deleted from my acct. And that looks very unlikely.

The only reason I can see for this restriction is to curb used game sales.

I guess I'm going to have to go try and talk them into letting me buy it back, hopefully at the price they paid me for it. Very unhappy = me.

Register for impulse using a separate email account, when u want to sell the game, give the guy the impulse account and the email that goes with it.  Also right of first sale is protected by law, you cannot give away your rights by agreeing to EULA.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale

Do you have another games or softwares on your account? If you dont have you can use Stardock's transfer tool and move your game to his Impulse account.

https://www.stardock.com/support/registrations/

Yeah I have read that EULAs are basically an attempt to illegally control the customer. But without legal pursuit of this, it's all a moot argument. Taking Stardock to court isn't exactly a simple thing to do.

Eh well I also have Windowblinds. Hmmmm...

It's the game store's problem now.  It's easy to imagine an angry purchaser coming back to them and asking for their money back.  It wouldn't be that big of a deal if they were going to sell it for $5, but $20 isn't too far removed from the price of new.  Anyone who buys a used PC game for that price now-a-days is an idiot, IMHO.

<Edit> Sins can be had, brand new, for $18 at GoGamer.com right now.

I went back to the store and talked to the manager there. I brought along the "friendly" Stardock email and a print out of my key as a sort of proof of ownership. They just gave me the game back because they didn't know the price that they had bought it from me for. I felt kinda bad about it but eh what to do.

This isn't Gamestop or any sort of games store. It's a cool used books store called "Half Price Books" or some such. They actually have a games section. They have amazing prices on brand new liquidated game stock.

To answer the original question, I would think the ethical thing to do would be to contact the store and let them know that they gave you money for a product that a customer won't be able to register.  If they shrug their shoulders at that point, so be it - just keep that in mind if you plan on buying something from them in the future.  Legally speaking, I would think caveat emptor works both ways so you're probably in the clear.

As for the other stuff, IANAL nor do I play one on tv.  That said, I don't think the legal waters are all that muddy when it comes to things like Impulse, Steam, or D2D.  I've noticed those names don't come up in court cases involving First Sale Doctrine, and that's probably for a reason (not for lack of people trying).  They do, of course, come up all the time in forum posts all over the place.  My guess is the lack of legal action is because those fall under contract law at that point due to it being a licensing issue with most of those purchases, as opposed to the case above where it was a sale of the actual game.  Of course, the sale of the game was allowed, and the new owner will be able to play Sins right out of the box like anyone else.  As far as the free updating service that Stardock provides, well that requires a license ... <shrugs shoulders>

See my post right above yours.

You can resell the game as it is in the initial retail box as you like, and those people who buy it can play the initial release of the game as-is right out of the box.

As updates and online play are ongoing costs though, these are benefits of having a registered, original copy of the game.

Yep - sorry, I was at work so my post was waiting for some time before I finished it

Half Price Books is fantastic for games, by the way - a neat trick I learned was that the games with the two-tone price stickers are actually just overstock from warehouses (and therefore new) so you don't need to worry about these issues when you buy those. 

EDIT - dangit, and now someone else beats me to the punch!! 

Didn't Stardock have something to do with the Gamer's Bill of Rights?

Like I dunno, I may have overheard.

Well, that doesn't have "Gamer's have a right for full support for used games". 1.05 patch is propably still downloadable somewhere (stuff put on the internet never disappears, after all  ), so that covers the "meaningful updates" bit.

If it weren't for the activation requirement that would stop someone without a valid serial that's registered to their email, somebody could probably put together a homemade patcher for 1.0->latest. But yea that sentence kinda tells you why that's impossible and useless so whatever lol.

tell me about it, I asked for this game for x-mas but my wife decided to buy it at a used game store because my oldest daughter told her it probably wouldn’t run on my system. (like she really knows what she's talking about. it runs perfect.) well, as you guessed it I cant play online or anything because the former owner registered it.

I understand the reasons for the restrictions although I don’t agree with it, but If/when someone takes these companies to court to rule on the first sale doctrine ill be right there with them.

if I pay money to purchase a game, its mine, not there’s. they may have created it but I own it.

saying they own it and are just renting it to you is like saying just because a chair maker made a chair he still owns the chair after you bought it.

think about it, the gaming companies are worried someone is going to copy the game and give it or sell it to someone else.

I can do the same thing in my garage with the chair. yet you don’t see anti-chair piracy things being installed on it. I realize that’s an over simplification but the principle is still the same.

frankly, no matter how you cut it, it IS just about control and greed.

if your really worried about pirates, quit shipping to areas that has the majority of them or don’t make the product. period.

because there is no way to prevent it in this day and age short of not releasing it.

and pirates were never customers in the first place. so worrying about profit loss due to them is moot.

(and by the way, all this about pirates is all the crap they made me go through and prove I owned the original copy of the game just to tell me they cant do it is why.)

so frankly stardock, your (supposed) position on piratecy, just went out the window. thanks to your customer support personnel you have proven to be like almost every other game company. Ill also be retracting everything I ever told anyone about your company.

but because you ALLOW me to play single player, I wont make it a personal crusade to make your ratings drop.

They don't get anything by you buying it second hand. Thus they are not obligated to support your purchase. Don't like it? Welcome to the real world. You didn't give them anything, they don't have to give you anything back.

*shrug*

That's awfully rude of you actually. Ignore Annatar and his "real world" garbage. This is just an example of a copyright holder trying to maintain control over individual copies instead of the copyright. The least you could do before telling someone to go find the real world is read a bit about copyright law. Until the laws catch up and someone goes to court, just don't buy your PC games used Vlad. Supposedly Stardock was looking at used copies somehow but they sort of left that in the dust it seems.

well, like i said, my wife decided to buy it used. wasnt my choice.

The real problem here is the stores buying and selling used copies of Sins for retail, knowing full well that the game had a serial key.  Games with serial keys have existed for ages, and it's always been the same: the second hand copy either cannot be installed at all (serial key was removed) or is locked to the original purchaser's account.  Either way, the second-hand buyer is screwed. 

I have a similar problem. I just got the game for Christmas, not a second-hand copy I might add. But then a friend of mine decides to install entrenchment for me on my comp with HIS impulse account. Result, I don't have a valid serial number for playing entrenchment online.

But then again, I'm still pretty new to the game so I probably don't have any business playing online anyways

But yeah, it's basically the corporation trying to squeeze as much money out of each individual person, not that it's entirely their fault (the people who make and update the game need to get their money from somewhere...)

Oh, come on!  That one is no different than burning a disk.  You have an illegitimate copy of the game you didn't pay for.

Buying and selling legal copies of games should be, and probably is, a basic legal right for the consumer. Sharing i suppose is iffy although every other piece of media (CDs, DVDs, Console Games) can do it fairly easy. I don't mind Impulse's DRM, but I don't call what Stardock does as DRM free, they just slap their DRM on in a different way, via online and support, which is still an attempt to control the rights to their digital work.

But this isn't a case of buying and selling.  This is a clear-cut case of piracy.

Making a copy of the game is all fine, so long as the person who controls the copy is the original buyer.  If he gives away the copy, both he and the recipient have committed piracy.  You'd have a point about sharing if his friend deleted Entrenchment before he left.  In that case, one could argue that the copy was never really given away.  However, the fact is that both people now have a copy of the game, even though only one bought it.  That is textbook piracy.