OFFICIAL: Not allowed to resell the Game!

[urfisch]

...this news i found in the german forum. so think about, if you are going to buy it, just for testing purpose. could be an expensive try...if you are not even able to sell it via ebay, etc.

:know:

nice marketing idea, indeed.

[Kapitanleutnant]

Since when do used game dealers buy used PC games anyway? None of my local game stores have for many a year.
While I won't be buying SH5 for a number of reasons, I wholeheartedly support the steps that the games industry as a whole has taken towards combatting used game sales - they provide no revenue for the developers or publishers whatsoever.

[Kefru]

"I wholeheartedly support the steps that the games industry as a whole has taken towards combatting used game sales - they provide no revenue for the developers or publishers whatsoever"

What a stupid thing to say. PS3 and 360 gamers have the ability to trade in games when ever they feel like. DRM should be there to stop piracy not to be a new revenue stream for the developers against PC users.

PC gaming is dying and DRM will only serve to finish it off quicker. Publishers are producing more and more multiplatform games would you choose to spend £40 on a game on the PC if it has no residual value or on the PS3 knowing that you can trade it in when finished playing and get money back.

[Kapitanleutnant]

Who said anything about DRM? We're talking about used game sales which do not provide any revenue for the developer or publisher who made the game.

Get your panties unbunched.

[Letum]

Of course you can't resell it if it's not yours.

You may have paid for it, but with this DRM you don't own it.
:nope:

[Kapitanleutnant]

Of course you can't resell it if it's not yours.

You may have paid for it, but with this DRM you don't own it.
:nope:

You never owned SH3 or 4 either. Read your EULA - you purchased a license to use the game, you do not own the game or the code on the disc.

I do not support this new DRM as I have said elsewhere, but let's make sure we're getting our facts correct here.

[codmander]

who gives a hoot all we want is a great sim too much about security and whatnot no wonder only 7/43:oops:

[MercurySeven]

Well, isnt that the same thing Valve tried to score with HL2 in the beginning? And failed in court? If I remeber my "Legal Aspects of IT 101" right then (at least in European law) you have the right to resell whatever you bought as long as you bought it in a physical form (e.g. DVD). And since SH5 is just the first of a long list of UBI games thats supposed to run on this DRM thing I assume it will not go unnoticed by legal institutions. So ... Well, lets see what the proper authorities do with this.

[Letum]

You never owned SH3 or 4 either. Read your EULA - you purchased a license to use the game, you do not own the game or the code on the disc.

I do not support this new DRM as I have said elsewhere, but let's make sure we're getting our facts correct here.


Yes, clearly I have not bought the copyright to the code. That is not what is
meant when one says one owns a game.
I know that and it does not change what I am saying.

[Rosencrantz]

Kapitanleutnant wrote:


We're talking about used game sales which do not provide any revenue for the developer or publisher who made the game.




Unless you are somehow personally connected to the game industry, I can't see much of point in your statement. If company has already sold that single peace of the game, why in earth second hand trading should provide any revenue anymore? Is there no limits in human greed? :nope::nope::nope:


With respect,
-RC-

[Kefru]

Ubi is in effect discriminating against PC users. Assassins Creed 2 on the PS3 does not have any of these draconian DRM issues and you are "allowed" to resell the game when you are sick of it.

The DRM is overkill, like trying to kill a fly by burning down your house.

[Kapitanleutnant]

Unless you are somehow personally connected to the game industry, I can't see much of point in your statement. If company has already sold that single peace of the game, why in earth second hand trading should provide any revenue anymore? Is there no limits in human greed? :nope::nope::nope:


Because somebody who has not previously owned the game goes into the used game store and buys a used copy of that game. All the profit from that money goes directly to the retailer - the developer doesn't see a penny of it, and loses out on a customer who otherwise would have put money in their pocket.

So no, I guess there isn't a limit to human greed, it's just that in this case it's the retailer who is getting greedy, and the people who made the game are missing out.

[urfisch]

Because somebody who has not previously owned the game goes into the used game store and buys a used copy of that game. All the profit from that money goes directly to the retailer - the developer doesn't see a penny of it, and loses out on a customer who otherwise would have put money in their pocket.

So no, I guess there isn't a limit to human greed, it's just that in this case it's the retailer who is getting greedy, and the people who made the game are missing out.

the problem is not the retailer, or a used game dealer. the problem is the fact!!!

[bigboywooly]

Uh? I bought a lot of second hand games for anything between 2 and 10€. If I had had to buy them full price I would have passed. Either way the publisher doesn't get a cent.

Same as
My girls buy preowned games all the time
They wouldnt buy new as dont want to pay the extortianate prices and are never in a hurry to own a new game on release

so game publishers would never get their money anyway

[Kapitanleutnant]

If I had had to buy them full price I would have passed. Either way the publisher doesn't get a cent.
Which is why I don't support the used game market, and why I do support steps taken to limit it. It may not matter much with Ubisoft being a giant publisher, but it does hurt smaller devs, and if I hold this principle for them then I must hold to it for everybody.

Uh? I bought a lot of second hand games for anything between 2 and 10€.It's not hard to buy new games cheaply. I own more than 90 games on Steam and don't think I paid more than £15 for any of them - many are high quality AAA titles, I just had to exercise enough fiscal responsibility to wait until there was a sale on.
This isn't limited to digital distribution either - online retailers like Amazon and Play always have great deals on new PC games, and this way everybody gets their fair share - including the developer.

[Rosencrantz]

Kapitanleutnant wrote:

Because somebody who has not previously owned the game goes into the used game store and buys a used copy of that game. All the profit from that money goes directly to the retailer - the developer doesn't see a penny of it, and loses out on a customer who otherwise would have put money in their pocket.

So no, I guess there isn't a limit to human greed, it's just that in this case it's the retailer who is getting greedy, and the people who made the game are missing out.


At least your opinitions are interesting. Am I wrong, but you are also against second hand shopped cars, furnitures, homes and so on...???


-RC-

[Kapitanleutnant]

At least your opinitions are interesting. Am I wrong, but you are also against second hand shopped cars, furnitures, homes and so on...???


All of these things are necessities for living, so no I don't hold the same standard for buying clothes, homes, cars or what have you.
Games, however, are a luxury.

[Kapitanleutnant]

If you buy a game after a certain period of time, no matter where you get it I'm not so sure who gets the money. The publisher yes, the developpers? Doubt it.

Devlopers don't get paid for every single sale, they get their money from bulk orders made by retailers (but only after the Publisher had recouped their costs). *
If there were no used sales then first-line retailers would buy more bulk orders to meet demand, and the developers would have a better chance of seeing their hard earned cash.

If you're talking about ten years down the line then yeah, who cares, buy it any which way you like.

*And this is a really important thing - a developer doesn't see a single penny from the game until the publishers have got back all of the advance they paid to fund development. If the game doesn't sell enough units then the developer may not get anything. Every used sale hurts these guys down the line.

[Randomizer]

The principal that if you cannot sell it you do not own it as probably as old as commerce itself. I own books, some bought used but most bought new. I can legally sell them if there is a market and the authors and publishers get nothing from this transaction. Same goes for movies or music bought on the original media be it vinyl, tape or discs of whatever format. I can sell my old board wargames, my magazine collection and my chess set. I cannot sell the Wife's Scrabble game however since any revenues from the sale would not be worth the domestic problems that would undoubtedly occur but She could legally sell it if she desired.

What I cannot do is copy any of these things and sell the copy and that is as it should be.

There is no doubt that the movement towards this model of DRM, which is nothing less than rental thinly disguised as ownership, is the PC gaming wave of the future, it's win/win for the game publishers and has nothing whatsoever to do with combatting piracy and everthing to do with preventing legal product resale by making that resale physically impossible.

Why should computer game publishers be a special copyright case?

If I cannot re-sell an item, I do not really own it and so will not go through the fiction of "buying" it. If this DRM represents progress it can move ahead without me.

[Laffertytig]

"I wholeheartedly support the steps that the games industry as a whole has taken towards combatting used game sales - they provide no revenue for the developers or publishers whatsoever"

What a stupid thing to say. PS3 and 360 gamers have the ability to trade in games when ever they feel like. DRM should be there to stop piracy not to be a new revenue stream for the developers against PC users.

PC gaming is dying and DRM will only serve to finish it off quicker. Publishers are producing more and more multiplatform games would you choose to spend £40 on a game on the PC if it has no residual value or on the PS3 knowing that you can trade it in when finished playing and get money back.


this sums things up perfectly. can u imagine the uproar from ps3 and xbox users if they were told that they couldnt resell their games? everyone i know who has consoles do this.

what a joke, the jokes on pc users though which aint so funny!:down:

[Webster]

its because they use those stupid key codes, if they simply inbed a coded chip in the disc that the game must read to play then you cant copy it so you cant pirate it.

with the price of games you cant tell me spending $1 on a coded disk verses a 10 cent disc that needs a key and can be copied and pirated is not the better choice and you end piracy completely

[KL-alfman]

I really don't care about the impossibility of re-selling a SH release, cause I keep them all.

[ParaB]

Since more and more games nowadays don't offer a demo version prior to purchase I've actually bought quite a few games in the past which I have sold rather quickly again to minimize myfinancial losses when it turned out that it wasn't my cup of tea. With this new DRM effectively making this impossible I will certainly be much more cautious and buy fewer games in the future.

[Laffertytig]

I really don't care about the impossibility of re-selling a SH release, cause I keep them all.

well good for you mate but thousands of people dont!:down:

[Leandros]

Oh worse than Hitler! You wouldn't find Hitler playing jungle music at three o'clock in the morning!
What do you know about that...?

[Reece]

Because somebody who has not previously owned the game goes into the used game store and buys a used copy of that game. All the profit from that money goes directly to the retailer - the developer doesn't see a penny of it, and loses out on a customer who otherwise would have put money in their pocket.

So no, I guess there isn't a limit to human greed, it's just that in this case it's the retailer who is getting greedy, and the people who made the game are missing out.What a load!!:haha: Gee if I buy a new car I shouldn't resell it because the money goes to the dealer not the manufacturer!!:stare: If I purchase a DVD, whether it be a movie, an XBox game a PC game or whatever that is my business!!:yep: That is what it boils down to, business/money!! I paid money for it, if I don't want it anymore then I will sell it, if that is possible. If someone said to me "I'll give you $20 for that DVD" I'm not going to say "Sorry but I'd rather throw it in the bin so that the manufacturer can make more money and get fat while I get poorer"!!:-?

[walsh2509]

I see that a while ago , games companies don't want games hired out or resold.

2nd hand car anyone ... sorry son , once you buy that car its yours you can't then sell it on to someones else after some use.. YEAH RIGHT..

[Highbury]

The only reason you cannot "sell off" games with an online DRM is because your account is tied to your email and usually the publisher won't let you change that. Just register the game with a web based email for that game alone and you have no problems. Just give the email account info to the purchaser.

Remember what you "own" in this situation is the login and contact info. As long as you feel safe selling that then Ubi has no say in it.

It's a hassle but it's doable.

[KL-alfman]

well good for you mate but thousands of people dont!:down:

I apologize for my self-centered post.
now I understand that re-selling is an important theme to many people, which I couldn't imagine before. :cry:

[Hunter]

Second to Reece, the only thing I would to add that second hand transaction doesn't make a copy illigal, developers have already been paid for this exact copy. Whatever I am going to do with a copy after purchase is my personal choice, not a matter of their business. I do buy a copy and own it othervise it is called a rent, which they persistently try to bound to us. But neccesity of online access to play makes me upset most of all, since it violates my privacy withought saying about unability to play in case of internat connection fail due to maintenence works at provider, any sort of exident with communication lines which accure from time to time, or during waisting time on trip or outside of city. It doesn't make more attraction to mess with such product. Withought saying about low quality of highly priced majority of modern games on the market which prevents my from buying titles withought knowing that they realy worth it.

[Kapitanleutnant]

What a load!!:haha: Gee if I buy a new car I shouldn't resell it because the money goes to the dealer not the manufacturer!!:stare:

As I said earlier a car is a necessity, but congrats on your lack of reading comprehension.

If I purchase a DVD, whether it be a movie, an XBox game a PC game or whatever that is my business!!:yep: That is what it boils down to, business/money!! I paid money for it, if I don't want it anymore then I will sell it, if that is possible. If someone said to me "I'll give you $20 for that DVD" I'm not going to say "Sorry but I'd rather throw it in the bin so that the manufacturer can make more money and get fat while I get poorer"!!:-?I didn't say anything about a manufacturer - I'm thinking of the actual production staff who made the game or film. No need to get your panties in a bunch, I'm not going to send death squads to kick your door down and confiscate all your second-hand crap.
I don't even expect you to change your behaviour, I'm just supporting the moves the industry has taken to limit this kind of reselling and hope it's more widespread in the future.

[Hunter]

As I said earlier a car is a necessity,

If you live in a city with developed public transport, subway and daily traffic jams it isn't :)
I'm just supporting the moves the industry has taken to limit this kind of reselling
Reselling reduces profitability of every industry not just games and movies. The lower quality of games and movies is the more damage by reselling and piracy is claimed by industry :)

No need to get your panties in a bunch, I'm not going to send death squads to kick your door down and confiscate all your second-hand crap.

It is just a matter of legislation and time. Yesturday they created check-in system that connects your copy to sertain hardware, today remove ability to play off-line, tommorow will clame for monthly fee, a day after will scan your system and arrest for having a copy when they decide to start selling acces to online stored games and films instead of selling copies.
Actually, the only thing that would make me to accempt all that on-line bs*** is regular updates, new staff and developers support for custom mods.

[MercurySeven]

Actually, from the business viewpoint, reselling is not ALL bad. The ability to sell the thing after I bought it is added value to the product since I reduce my financial risks ("What if the thing is rubbish?") and I even have the prospect of regaining some of my investments after I have played the game. This sums up to added incentives to buy the thing in the first place, thus generating sales and thus money for the various guys in the value chain.

Against this run the "costs" of losing customers that would have bought the thing as new to those reseller offers. However, here it has to be taken into consideration that people resell the game either if they are done playing it (so if its a good game after quite some time) or if they dont like it in the first place. If you REALLY like it (like me and SH3 and SH4) you wont resell it at all. If you resell it after a long time most of the people that were "hot" for the game will have bought it already on their own and you just disrupt the sales with already lowered price and generally low sales numbers. If you resell it straight away because you dont like it you would probably not have bought it if you were not allowed to resell it (When in doubt ...) and thus just pass on your copy to someone else at probably pretty much the same price as cou bought it two weeks before.

So, just from the numbercruncher point of view it really is a giving and taking sort of thing and it could even be that allowing resell adds more revenue then it kills.
One last thing to consider: Customer Relationship Management. I thought by now most companies have understood that CRM ist quite a biggy for making business. If you care for your customers they will have good expectations of future products and probably buy them as well. And if you make your customers REALLY happy they even promote your product at freinds and advise them to buy it. If you have bad CRM and you continue to kick your loyal customers in the nuts the whole thing tumbles over and instead of recommending you they actually go around screaming bloody murder and do everything they can to stop other people from "making the same mistake they did when they bought that crap". (See current situation in ubi.com and here...) So while allowing people the "right" to resell what they rightfully BOUGHT adds value of the product and Customer Lifetime Value doing the opposite reduces the value of the product and seriously crunches the CLV.

This just from a business student ... :yeah:

[Uber Gruber]

I just bought a new house. Alas it's a real pain that I can't sell it because it would provide no extra-revenue to the builders. :nope:

[Reece]

If you sell a game secondhand it becomes available to the poor and also to the would-be-pirate, who says to himself it's not worth downloading the game, for a few bucks I will own a legit copy!!:up:so there you have it, two good reasons to resell the games!!:yep:

[Kapitanleutnant]

I just bought a new house. Alas it's a real pain that I can't sell it because it would provide no extra-revenue to the builders. :nope:

Are you just retarded or what? Are you physically incapable of reading a thread? Jesus Christ.

If you sell a game secondhand it becomes available to the poor and also to the would-be-pirate, who says to himself it's not worth downloading the game, for a few bucks I will own a legit copy!!:up:so there you have it, two good reasons to resell the games!!:yep:

If you exercise enough self control and financial discipline to wait a few months you get that same game new at a significantly reduced price. So there you have it, live within your means and make a contribution to the industry.

[Thomen]

Are you just retarded or what? Are you physically incapable of reading a thread? Jesus Christ.

:nope:

[Laffertytig]

As I said earlier a car is a necessity, but congrats on your lack of reading comprehension.

I didn't say anything about a manufacturer - I'm thinking of the actual production staff who made the game or film. No need to get your panties in a bunch, I'm not going to send death squads to kick your door down and confiscate all your second-hand crap.
I don't even expect you to change your behaviour, I'm just supporting the moves the industry has taken to limit this kind of reselling and hope it's more widespread in the future.

are you on the wind up here:hmmm: if not, then your seriously beginnin to sound like a ubisoft corporate board member!

do you also want to stop cars being sold 2nd hand as well, or anything else that can currently be resold?:nope:

how bout console games, you wanna stop them bein resold as well?
what a strange opinion you have.

[Navarre]

Ubisoft can't install this system in Switzerland because they have a clause in their Act which states:

"Has an author of a computer program approved it for sale, it may be then used or resell by any customer."

Now we must look for a game store in Switzerland!
:rotfl2:

[KL-alfman]

brave swiss!

fine people, fine scenery, and very liberal! :yeah:

[Reece]

If you exercise enough self control and financial discipline to wait a few months you get that same game new at a significantly reduced price. So there you have it, live within your means and make a contribution to the industry.Something we can both agree on!:up:

[Rockin Robbins]

I am about as conservative as it gets but this is a region where government regulation is warranted. One of the rights traditionally granted to buyers of published material is the right to resell. That should be required for all software.

[Webster]

i think the whole key to this resale issue is the numbered key that is no longer secret and one of a kind after the cd is opened.


be honest here, how many people will make a duplicate copy of the game, write the registration number down then resell the game? i think maybe 98% of all second hand games are done this way, so i see why they dont want resales but i dont agree with there thought process.

put a freakin digital key into the cd itself (not in the data where it can be copied but in the plastic disk itself someplace like the center ring were no regular disk can be recorded on) and then there is no "number" to copy or share with friends. im no expet but something like this must be doable and yes its not perfect but it can trim like 50% of all the amature piracy going on out there if the number key is no longer readable to the regular eye

[Highbury]

I am about as conservative as it gets but this is a region where government regulation is warranted. One of the rights traditionally granted to buyers of published material is the right to resell. That should be required for all software.

There is no law that can prevent it. In legal terms you are not buying software but an End-User License. You can bet the EULA will in some way state that the license is non-transferable (as applies to pretty much any kind of license I can think of). They had lawyers write up fancy ways out of it a long time ago or Steam would not be operating.

Also, Like I said above, what keeps you from reselling it is the fact that you have registered your key with an account using your name, your email etc etc. If you buy SHV then make a web based email just to register that game, register with a fake name, use a password/login different then usual. Now if you want to sell it you can sell the login info to the email account and the game. New owner changes both passwords, you are locked out. Done. Ubi CANNOT stop that. People register RoF this way for just this reason.

[Frederf]

On the list of bunk arguments I don't know where to start, but the idea that resale allowed/not-allowed is split between the groups "luxury" and "necessity" like KaptainL said is pure fantasy. There are tons of luxuries that permit resale and I'm sure we can think of some necessities that don't if we really try.

No, the dividing line between "resale possible-permissible-common" and "resale impossible-impermissible-rare" is in this case exactly (and for no other reason) that the selling party attached a restrictive contract on a product and enforced it.

If Ford decided tomorrow that buying a new car required that the buyer accept a "one time owner, non-transferable license" type agreement with regard to the new car... then that would be that. The only reason that Ford does not do this is because they think they can make more money under the current buy-own model for several reasons.

Software, entertainment or otherwise, is one of only a few things on planet Earth that buyers seem to tolerate being licensed to them. Don't be confused by the distinctions involved in either owning the code vs. licensing the use or how you're only allowed to use one copy at a time vs. making unlimited physical copies. These are natural restrictions that make software products behave like more conventional products for the purposes of sale, purchase, control, etc.

It is entirely something else that the license cannot be transferred. This is altogether a step beyond trying to make software be a product like a toaster is a product to perverting the licensing process into a shameless grab for cash. It might be easy to confuse these similar licensing peculiarities, but make sure that we can see why they are distinct.

Design vs. Example
I own a toaster, but I do not own the design of the toaster. This is natural because it would be impractical for a party to sell a product if its design was not protected in this way.
Software's "use of program" agreement mirrors this.

Do Not Copy
This one is more theoretical since none of us has a device that easily and cheaply allows us to duplicate toasters but if such a device was common the industry for toasters could never exist. It's obvious why Software has a do not copy agreement as it makes the utility of the software being sold a known and limited quantity.

Do Not Resell
I use a toaster until I am done using a toaster and I give it to someone else. No one in their right mind would accuse me of theft or wrongdoing for transferring utility of the product. One "utility of toaster" was purchased and one "utility of toaster" still exists in the world. The Toast Co. empire is not cheated.

Oddly, there seems to be a sense of wrongdoing to transfer use of Software which I believe is absolutely misplaced. "Reselling software reduces creator's additional profits," they say to which I say, "So?" Apart from the obvious case when there is an agreement to the contrary, ethically it is not wrong to "deny profits." I mean none of you Subsim forum users have sent me a check this week. What gives? You are totally denying me money. As you can see it's absolutely stupid to complain about "denying profits" unless you can provide a convincing argument that profits were deserved.

One car is purchased and is owned by Person A. Person A uses for a while and sells to Person B, repeat for person C. So 1 product is used by 3 persons but in sequence such that at any one time only 1 "utility of product" existed in the universe. As rational people we consider this normal and that Ford did not deserve any additional payment from persons B and C. They made 1 product, only 1 "utility of product" was in effect at any one time, and thus only 1 car's worth of money was deserved by Ford.

For some reason this concept has trouble transferring over in parallel to Software despite the obvious and practical direct application of concepts. Ethically, I paid for 1 "utility of software" and I don't give a rat's ass if UBI would like to get paid for each potential user of that utility. In my opinion UBI got their money the first time it was purchased and that same product is still going strong in new hands.

DRM of course is finally the tool that software companies have longed for to cash in on their previously toothless EULAs, now long after the technically legal but rarely enforced draconian agreements have established precedence. As a customer base we are simply too weak or demand that it be any different but it is truly sad to see the sheep defending the wolf when the wolf's motives have no solid, logical bases.

Perhaps if making software worth keeping guaranteed more new user sales, quality would be rewarded. Short-lived flash in the pan software would rightfully suffer compared to quality software as the short duration of utility would mean a small number of licenses would satisfy a larger customer base.

[Rockin Robbins]

Yup, exactly why government should step in and mandate that registration numbers belong to people, not to drink coasters. The game companies should let the pirates copy as many games as they want. Until you register the game in your name and receive a personal registration number from the software vendor, you don't get to play. That's how much of the software I own works.

That's how all software should be required to work. Of course that would mean that a drink coaster would have next to zero resale value anyway, as merely getting a disk wouldn't confer the right to play. The disk would only be worth what a blank disk costs.

Hey, there is no ideal solution. The best available course would be for the game companies to toss enough goodies to legitimate players that they would be glad to purchase the game to get them.

I predict in ten years we wonder why we would ever want it another way.

[Uber Gruber]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Gruber http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/haylazblue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1249404#post1249404)
I just bought a new house. Alas it's a real pain that I can't sell it because it would provide no extra-revenue to the builders. :nope:

Are you just retarded or what? Are you physically incapable of reading a thread? Jesus Christ.Hi Kapitanleutnant,

I am not retarded and I can physically read, so I do hope this answers your question. If not then please feel free to contact me, sounds like you need a good shag mate....me luv you long time, only 2 dollar!

Cheers, UG

[Thomen]

Hi Kapitanleutnant,

I am not retarded and I can physically read, so I do hope this answers your question. If not then please feel free to contact me, sounds like you need a good shag mate....me luv you long time, only 2 dollar!

Cheers, UG

Damn.. the recession must have hit you hard, if your price went down from $5 to $2.. :D

[janh]

As stated before, in the European Union, especially in Germany, resale of whatever you may have bought legally is part of your basic rights. You are proper owner.

A court rules a few years ago (don't nail me on the date, but I am sure you can look up the case online one some goverment archive) against a software distributer who tried to undermine customer's laws. So this holds true for "hard goods" as well as "mind products" (there is a funny germand special term for brain products such as books, movies etc).

However, if Ubi creates the server in a specific way, then you could only resell the game under the condition that a user can only have say "x many" restarts of his career, or x parallel careers or anything you may come up with that would "spoil" a game technically for resale. Now you would have a technical reason, and that is a different story for law. Lawyers would have to proof that this was done to harass customers, and that is likekly a unthankful case.
And Ubisoft might be have won. I simply cannot support that, and I also don't want to wait with my decision to buy or not to buy SHV till a European Court rules in 6 years from now... Then I'd rather say no thanks and wait for another publisher to start competing with Ubisoft on Submarine Games. Can only be a question of time till Akella or other see their chance now that Ubisoft kicks their customers back... And hire the Ubisoft developers (who is that company again)?

When I buy a new products, both Ubisoft as Distributors and the Developers get their fair share of money. After that used sales won't. But they never in history have, and they should not. It is just greedy. Someone should look up what Ubisofts last profits where....

[Kremmen]

I got back into subsimming via a secondhand copy of SH3 bought on ebay.From there I bought SH4 new and was all ready to get SH5 on release (till all this about the DRM came out) but that's another thing entirely,point is,from a secondhand purchase Ubi gained sales for their new products.So it follows that while someone may be hesitant to pay £30-£40 for a new release,a s/h purchase at £10 might tempt them to try it and the publisher potentially gains a new follower of the franchise which grants them future sales.
Just my simplified view.

[Frederf]

I'm pretty envious of some of the consumer protection laws being introduced in Europe. The United States is so afraid of ideas so "socialist" or "anti-Capitalist" that we get to enjoy our freedom of being systematically abused by large industry for years to come.

[Uber Gruber]

Damn.. the recession must have hit you hard, if your price went down from $5 to $2.. :D

Its $2 for him cos I like his butch nature:03:

Price remains $5 to you though Thomen...:shifty:

[Thomen]

Price remains $5 to you though Thomen...:shifty:


awww.. crap, .. that's not fair. :timeout:

:D

[frau kaleun]

I'll give you ten dollars if you leave the hat on.

[Thomen]

On topic:

Personally, I am a fan of reselling games. Mind, you I usually keep my games once bought, but I do however buy used games from time to time (especially older titles). I also a big fan of used books.. :up:

[frau kaleun]

On topic:

Personally, I am a fan of reselling games. Mind, you I usually keep my games once bought, but I do however buy used games from time to time (especially older titles). I also a big fan of used books.. :up:

Half Price Books FTW!

I have bought and resold a lot of stuff there.

Actually the order is usually 1) resold and then 2) bought before I could get safely out the door with all the $$ still in my pocket.

[Thomen]

Half Price Books FTW!

I have bought and resold a lot of stuff there.

Actually the order is usually 1) resold and then 2) bought before I could get safely out the door with all the $$ still in my pocket.
:up:

We got a used book seller in town. I do not even want to think about how much money I left there over the last 5 years.

[frau kaleun]

:up:

We got a used book seller in town. I do not even want to think about how much money I left there over the last 5 years.

Ages ago I was in downtown Cincinnati (nearest "big" city) and just wandering around to kill time, and I stumbled on this store called Acres of Books.

And it was. Literally. Acres. It was a small storefront in width but turned out to be deep and three stories high, and they had all three stories lined with shelves. Flooring taken out between them... the proprietor had one of those huge ladders on rollers that he'd use to find whatever you asked for, if he had it. Just a walkway around the edges of the top floor where he or you could go up and browse, but still needed a shorter ladder for those shelves because they also went straight up to the ceiling of that level.

For the short time I was able to spend there, I believed there really was a God. :O:

Sadly I went back a couple years later and couldn't find it. Tried looking them up in the phone book but no listing, so they must've closed. I can't imagine what happened to all those books.

[Silanda]

You never owned SH3 or 4 either. Read your EULA - you purchased a license to use the game, you do not own the game or the code on the disc.

I do not support this new DRM as I have said elsewhere, but let's make sure we're getting our facts correct here.

Lets. EULAs are legally not worth the paper they're printed on / bytes they take up, despite what the software industry would have you believe. Anything can be written in a EULA but that doesn't mean that a court will uphold it, especially when, as has been alluded to, the EULA may not actually be written in accordance to actual law.

The most obvious and common problem would be that for physical purchases the buyer cannot view the EULA until after the purchase has already been made and/or the software executed.

[JScones]

You never owned SH3 or 4 either. Read your EULA - you purchased a license to use the game, you do not own the game or the code on the disc.

I do not support this new DRM as I have said elsewhere, but let's make sure we're getting our facts correct here.
Wrong (apart from the code ownership part). Publishers are not above state/federal law. Just ask Autodesk...

In Autodesk Case, Judge Rules Secondhand Sales OK
2 Oct 09

A Seattle judge ruled in favor of a man arguing that he has the right to sell secondhand software, in a case that had some people worried about an end to used-book and CD stores.

The suit was initially filed by Timothy Vernor after eBay, responding to requests by Autodesk, removed the Autocad software that Vernor was trying to sell on the auction site. EBay later banned Vernor from the site, based on Autodesk's complaints.

Vernor argued that since he was selling legitimate versions of the software -- not illegal copies -- he hadn't violated any laws.

Autodesk contends that it doesn't "sell" its software, but instead licenses it and therefore prohibits buyers from reselling it.

But no matter how Autodesk describes the agreement with customers, it is transferring ownership to end-users, the judge, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, found. Autodesk had argued that its restrictions on the way that buyers can use the software show that users license rather than own the software.

"A person who buys a home is nonetheless restricted in his use and subsequent transfer of the home by property laws, zoning ordinances, and fair housing statutes," Judge Richard Jones wrote in his ruling. "No one would characterize the person's possession, however, as something other than ownership. Similarly, the court cannot characterize Autodesk's decision to let its licensees retain possession of the software forever as something other than a transfer of ownership, despite numerous restrictions on that ownership."

In previous arguments, both sides warned of dire consequences that could follow the judge's decision. But he said he thinks the impact will be minimal.

Autodesk argued that if the judge decided that people own its software, prices will rise for end-users. But that argument ignores the secondhand market, which offers better prices for consumers, the judge noted. "Although Autodesk would no doubt prefer that consumers' money reaches its pockets, that preference is not a basis for policy," Jones wrote.

Vernor has argued that if the judge ruled that the software was indeed licensed, then any copyright owner could impose severe restrictions on how their products are used. For instance, book publishers could bar resale and lending, eliminating the used-book market as well as libraries.

Even if he had ruled against Vernor, such fear was "misplaced," the judge said. "Although the interpretation of 'owner' in the Copyright Act no doubt has important consequences for software producers and consumers, the court is skeptical that its ruling today will have far-reaching consequences," he wrote.

The judge denied Vernor's charges against Autodesk of copyright misuse.

Autodesk did not immediately have comment on the ruling, which it can appeal.It's just that Tim had the balls to call their bluff. I'm sure there'd be other examples in other juridictions across the world.

[Sgtmonkeynads]

Just a thought, but doesn't the no re-sell impede interstate trade. I know the feds don't like that at all. Hell, Montana skirts some ATF laws with the claim of hampered trade.

[Der Teddy Bar]

Who said anything about DRM? We're talking about used game sales which do not provide any revenue for the developer or publisher who made the game.

Get your panties unbunched.
This is another example of how little business smarts Ubisoft has if we were to take this to the next logical step then we will need to close down the public libraries.

Seriously, we need to shut down all the libraries as Go To Hellman (http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/)'s (link to site) article demonstrates so well

Offline Book "Lending" Costs U.S. Publishers Nearly $1 Trillion (http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2010/01/offline-book-lending-costs-us.html)

Hot on the heels of the story in Publisher's Weekly (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6714772.html?nid=2286&rid=#CustomerId&source=link) that "publishers could be losing out on as much $3 billion to online book piracy" comes a sudden realization of a much larger threat to the viability of the book industry. Apparently, over 2 billion books were "loaned" (http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2010/01/numbers-for-libraries-and-book-market.html) last year by a cabal of organizations found in nearly every American city and town. Using the same advanced projective mathematics used in the study cited by Publishers Weekly (http://www.attributor.com/blog/book-piracy-costs-study/), Go To Hellman has computed that publishers could be losing sales opportunities totaling over $100 Billion per year, losses which extend back to at least the year 2000. These lost sales dwarf the online piracy reported yesterday, and indeed, even the global book publishing business itself.

From what we've been able to piece together, the book "lending" takes place in "libraries". On entering one of these dens, patrons may view a dazzling array of books, periodicals, even CDs and DVDs, all available to anyone willing to disclose valuable personal information in exchange for a "card". But there is an ominous silence pervading these ersatz sanctuaries, enforced by the stern demeanor of staff and the glares of other patrons. Although there's no admission charge and it doesn't cost anything to borrow a book, there's always the threat of an onerous overdue bill for the hapless borrower who forgets to continue the cycle of not paying for copyrighted material.

To get to the bottom of this story, Go To Hellman has dispatched its Senior Piracy Analyst (me) to Boston, where a mass meeting of alleged book traffickers is to take place. Over 10,000 are expected at the "ALA Midwinter (http://www.ala.org/ala/conferencesevents/upcoming/midwinter/2010/index.cfm)" event. Even at the Amtrak station in New York City this morning, at the very the heart of the US publishing industry, book trafficking culture was evident, with many travelers brazenly displaying the totebags used to transport printed contraband.

As soon as I got off the train, I was surrounded by even more of this crowd. Calling themselves "Librarians", they talk about promoting literacy, education, culture and economic development, which are, of course, code words for the use and dispersal of intellectual property. They readily admit to their activities, and rationalize them because they're perfectly legal in the US, at least for now.

Typical was Susanne from DC, who told me that she's been involved in lending operations for over 15 years. This confirms our estimate that "lending" has been going on for over ten years, beyond even Google's memory. Our trillion dollar estimate may thus be on the conservative side. Of course, it's impossible to tell how many of these lent books would have been purchased legally if "libraries" were not an option, but we're not even considering the huge potential losses to publishers when "used" books are resold for pennies on the black markets.

The communications backbone for this vast enterprise appears to be Twitter. Already, there is constant chatter on the #alamw10 (https://twitter.com/#search?q=%23alamw10) hashtag. Most messages are clearly coded references to illicit transactions. For example a trafficker with the alias "@libacat" tweets (http://twitter.com/libacat/status/7766435664) "Have to be on the bus to the airport at 6:41 tomorrow morning to make it to the airport to get on my plane to #alamw10". At first glance, it seems like a mundane tweet about travel plans, but the breathtaking ordinariness and triple redundancy is more likely a secret code. How else to understand @scolford's (correction: retweet of @SonjaandLibrary replying to @BPLBoston) tweet (http://twitter.com/scolford/status/7767408985); "curling my toes in joy at the thought of visiting your library"?

I've attended this meeting before. When I register for the book lending confab, I'll be presented with an encrypted document labeled the "program", which once decoded, will tell me where I can meet other book traffickers, discuss arcane trafficker lore, and drink trafficker beer. It's thick with secret code words like YALSA, LITA and NMRT, and no apparent rhyme or reason in its layout, evidently to frustrate outside investigators. I'll be lucky if I can find a bathroom.

Two places I'll be sure to find this weekend will be the OCLC Blog Salon (http://scanblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-salon-moved.html) on Sunday evening and the Chinatown Storefront Library (http://www.storefrontlibrary.org/) on Saturday afternoon. Say hello if you see me.


In their greed the companies have lost all common sense.

[GlobalExplorer]

I believe according to German (and other EU) law, such claims as made by UBI are irrelevant and can be ignored. You can of course resell the game if you paid for it. Of course this applies only if you're a customer, rental etc. is different. However, the content mafia is already trying to undermine the law, that's why I now vote for the Pirate Party btw.

[Reece]

EB Games here in Australia have a swapping section, is it OK for them to do this?:hmmm: If so then it's OK for me!!:O:

[MercurySeven]

I believe according to German (and other EU) law, such claims as made by UBI are irrelevant and can be ignored. You can of course resell the game if you paid for it. Of course this applies only if you're a customer, rental etc. is different. However, the content mafia is already trying to undermine the law, that's why I now vote for the Pirate Party btw.

As far as I remember this is true as long as you have purchased a physical object (such as the DVD).
Additionally:


Any addition to a sales contract between a company and a customer that would classify as "unexpected" (such as "You have bought our product, but you are not allowed to sell it again") are void
Anything that UBI wants you to agree on has to be agreed by you before the contract between you and UBI is valid by a definite action which is not provided by just buying or even opening the game

Regarding the second part:
If you buy the thing you can resell it immediately.
If you then open the box you can resell it immediately and also return it to the retailer. This is due to the fact that UBI will probably not put a legal text on the outside of the packaging telling you that you cannot resell the thing. Since you therefor have to open the package to gain that information you can then refuse to enter this contract and return or resell.
If you agree to UBIs contract by installing the game you will have to dig deeper for the first mentioned part about the right to resell any physical merchandise you bought as mentioned above.

Mind you, all this is legal mumbo jumbo and might require a lawyer of some sort since neither UBI nor a retailer will be very happy about this. :shifty:

[JU_88]

Well this isnt the first time, I remember it being similar with Half Life2.
Its no great loss anyway, PC games depreciate in value so quickly, unless you sell the game withing first few months you'll get a pittance for it anyway.
I dont expect its a law that will be taken too seriously by most, if you want to sell it to some one who wants to buy it, no-one can stop you.
Can you really see anyone being taken to a small claims court over this?

I am calling Ubi's bluff on this one, not that it effects me personally as I will not be reselling my copy of SHV.
No offence but anyone who decides to consult a Lawyer over this, must have a lot of spare time and money on their hands...

[Uber Gruber]

Excellent post Teddy.

In our society 1 in 10 people demonstrate sociopathic tendencies. In the upper echelons of corporates the stat is 1 in 4. Corporate structures are thus geared such that empathy challenged people rise higher and quicker. Is it really surprising then that joe public feels 'shock' and 'awe' at the cut throat and inhumane practices of corporates ?

We created this society, so its up to us to keep it clean.... one way joe public can help is by ethical shopping.

So vote with your wallets - it's the only 'useful' vote one has in a society mainly driven by greed.

[MercurySeven]

Exactly what I was thinking of. HL2 was a good example. Actually the first time that I remember that a publisher tried to stop reselling by means of DRM under the false pretence that it is "simply not possible" for them to unhook a game license from one account and give it to another account. :shifty:

However, in recent games this depreciation was (at least when it was a good game) less severe. I like to play more then just one genre so I keep an open eye on all kinds of games. While some dropped their value rather fast others remain rather costly. Just look at COD World at War. It was released late 2008, COD MW2 is out a few months already and still they charge you 38 € for the thing. Sure, SH5 won't have the number of customers that a FPS game like that generates but since this new DRM strategy of UBI applies to all their future games I expect them to run in some trubles regarding the resell thing.

[JU_88]

Excellent post Teddy.
So vote with your wallets - it's the only 'useful' vote one has in a society mainly driven by greed.

Easy for you to say, from what I remember from your earlier posts, you were never going to buy it anyway :haha:
The other possible outcome of voting with your wallet (in this particular case) could also just mean the death of the Silent Hunter series.

I guess it just depends on your priorities and what you are prepared to sacrafice. Id rather just play the damn game than be a martyr making some political statment by refusing spending £30 on something I love.

Not saying I agree with DRM and no-reselling, but the way I see it - the most likely alternative to 'Publisher tyrany' is having no more Subsims to bitch about (and maybe even no more subsim forums to bitch on either.)
What then?

The phrase "Dont know what you got till its gone" springs to mind.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Local laws permit that i sell any Product i Bought, and can prove i bought.
Ubi can write what they want in their EULA, since this aint the US of A, its all rubbish.:yeah:

Most of it anyway.

[HundertzehnGustav]

The phrase "Dont know what you got till its gone" springs to mind.

Like a phoenix rising from the ashes?

[Fire_Spy]

If UBI was really trying to crack down on reselling games then you'd think they'd also target console games.. but they don't seem to be.

[Reece]

If UBI was really trying to crack down on reselling games then you'd think they'd also target console games.. but they don't seem to be.Exactly, why just pick on PC games?:hmmm:

[Uber Gruber]

Arghhhh..not the old "they might not make any more if we don't buy it" argument....RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY!!! :D

But it is a valid point, there is indeed a risk that UBI won't make any more sub sims if we hurt their revenues.

However, i'm completely amblivalent to what UBI decides to do. I have SH3 to satisfy my "I want to sink ships" addiction when it rears its ugly head. And in the meantime I might just go outside and meet people....though I imagine that would be quite scary. :dead:.

Of course, once they remove the DRM/OSD/KACK 'feature' i'll buy SHV...after a few patch releases...:03:

[Mikhayl]

Even if sales are dismal, if the game is decent people will buy it second hand or in the bargain bin and if it's as modable as it seems, it will still be played in 5 years so there's no urgency for another subsim.

And if there's still a strong following in 3/4 years Ubi or someone else will see potential $$$ and they'll make another subsim.

[HundertzehnGustav]

But it is a valid point, there is indeed a risk that UBI won't make any more sub sims if we hurt their revenues.

i respectfully disagree...:stare::stare:

We do not HURT their revenues.
We (the non-buyers) are not doing anything Bad.
The Non buyers are NOT the guilty ones.
We the Non buyers are trying to spread the word about this crazyness.
(wasting our time analyzing and discussing the OSP/DRM scheme)

If the News of "them going Bonkers with this online sheme" is putting their company out of business, the it is not US that are guilty.
It is themselves.

The Customer is the KING, not the Evildoer.

They are running out of fuel, and are in the Middle of the Atlantic.
And they are not going to Milk-cow Me!:O:

[Jimbuna]

Even if sales are dismal, if the game is decent people will buy it second hand or in the bargain bin and if it's as modable as it seems, it will still be played in 5 years so there's no urgency for another subsim.

And if there's still a strong following in 3/4 years Ubi or someone else will see potential $$$ and they'll make another subsim.

Agreed.....there is always a business out there looking to make profits.

[Catfish]

Hello,
have been away for some weeks and now this crazy Rise-of-flight-stuff is also done to Silent Hunter V ?!
At least i understand now why they did not tell something about it earlier :down:
With this DRM they know exactly from where you played, with what IP-adress, at what time. As soon as their registering server breaks down you are not able to play, not even single missions - easy as that - happened before with RoF. At the same time any patch is automatically being force-downloaded to your harddisk as soon as you want to start the game. Wanted to play for 15 minutes ? Forget it, load down the new 700 m patch first, apply, restart PC. The patch is broken, not able to play ? Wait for the next one.
:shifty::stare::nope::nope::nope:

Maybe someone should tell UBIsoft that this kind of DRM is most probably NOT ALLOWED IN THE EU, because it violates the basic law of customer protection of the EU, let alone it is against what is being written down in Germany's basic law book, the Grundgesetz.
I know this is still a grey zone, with companies surging ahead without looking at the laws.
Same with "not being able to resell the game".
The latter is certainly easy to circumvent, log-in and register with a new fantasy account you just made up, and resell this eMail-adress with the game.
But the thought of this crap alone !

I know it's not the devs, but what are those ******** marketing sons of goat desecrators thinking ? This is not Mickeysoft server architecture, or SAP.
This is a bloody GAME ! GET REAL !

Greetings,
Catfish

P.S. I recently bought RoF, because the dev team announced to finally drop the online requirement. I would not have bought it without this announcement.

[Iranon]

I am willing to buy games, which includes my right to resell them, and to use them as I wish without needing to ask for permission every time I try to run them.
Otherwise I am not the owner and therefore haven't bought it.

In some cases, I may be willing to pay monthly or annual fees for the privilege of playing. This makes some sense for games that have new content added continuously and some standardisation is recommended (e.g. because it's a predominantly online game).
Here full ownership could be the awkward option, feeling pressured into buying a new expansion every month wouldn't be any better, escalate costs and involve more work for the consumer.

I am, however, not willing to pay a realistic buying price if I don't get the associated rights.

[henriksultan]

Well ofcource the devs should be credited for there great work, no doubt about it. So many hours of fun I have had with the silent hunter games...
Still wont buy the game coz i dont trust my internet connection do. But I bet SH5 will be a awesome game and I will be here to read all tales of fun...

Till DRM goes missing, happy sailing!
Great work and live well and prosper!

[artao]

Game resale does not hurt the developer or publisher because there is still only one copy of the game that was initially bought. If I resell it, I no longer have a copy, thus only one copy was ever sold such that the publisher/developer gets revenue from it. And if I buy a game and don't like it or find it has no replay value, I darn well better be able to re-sell it! Copying a game and keeping it while selling the original is, of course, illegal, and should be. But the argument that game resale hurts developers/publishers is a non-argument at best.
Also, I like the argument from whomever posted it that one can not read the EULA until AFTER one has purchased the item in question. That is quasi-legal at best, but few if any people have challenged that. I don't even read EULAs anymore, because it's pointless. If I click 'don't agree' I can't use the software, and have no recourse to recover the money I spent on it. Just TRY to return a PC game you've already opened, I dare you. Ridiculous. So I just click 'accept' as I really have no other real choice.


ps -- how do I add the 'no connection to Ubisoft' etc image to my sig?

[HundertzehnGustav]

in your signature menu, add/replace a signature element, click the *insert image* button
a popup windows wants you to indicate the location of the image.
The location is
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/oleman/drm31.jpg

:)

[The General]

I still wont buy the game coz i dont trust my internet connection. But I bet SH5 will be a awesome game and I will be here to read all tales of fun...!Surely you're gonna atleast try the game before you make such an absolute decision?!

[Rip]

Surely you're gonna atleast try the game before you make such an absolute decision?!

How exactly can you try it without buying it? I haven't seen any 30 day trial offers, and now you are forbade from reselling it. The only way to try it is find someone else buying it on faith and being stuck with it whether it works for them or is a frequent disconnect/downtime nightmare.

I will buy it and write extensively here and elsewhere of the experience for whatever it turns out to be. I hope it is a positive one but if not expect me to be a very vocal and unforgiving critic. If the right to be an obnoxious bitcher is all my money ends up buying I intend to make extensive use of it.

[The General]

How exactly can you try it without buying it? Well, a friend of his might buy it and he can take a look it at it then. What I meant was that it's a bit soon to make an absolute decision on SH5 wouldn't you say?

As for Reselling SH5, what is it; 1986?! Who's making all this money out of reselling games exactly?

[artao]

AHA!! :D thanks. I'd just tried the old 'img' tags, didn't know about the insert image button. heh heh ...

[Rip]

Well, a friend of his might buy it and he can take a look it at it then. What I meant was that it's a bit soon to make an absolute decision on SH5 wouldn't you say?

As for Reselling SH5, what is it; 1986?! Who's making all this money out of reselling games exactly?

If you don't like it and resell right away you can do very well, or at least trade for some other game. About 30% of the games I own I got from someone else. Actually this is even bigger in consoles than PCs but strangely consoles are not subject to the crazy OSP crap.

[Nisgeis]

a developer doesn't see a single penny from the game until the publishers have got back all of the advance they paid to fund development. If the game doesn't sell enough units then the developer may not get anything.

Not if the developers are Ubisoft employees, then they are salaried employees of the publisher and they get paid... Hmmm... every month I guess. I think in this case it would be more accurate to say that the devs get paid before the game is finished and will cease to be paid if SH5 add-ons or SH6 are cancelled.

If I cannot re-sell an item, I do not really own it and so will not go through the fiction of "buying" it. If this DRM represents progress it can move ahead without me.

Interesting point. As you are no buying the game, you are merely purchasing a license to play it, then the code on the game is not property being bought and if that's true, then can you actually steal it? :hmmm:.

And to the point about no value going back to the publisher for a resale, then that's not true either. Some people rely on getting that cash back when they purchase the game, to offset the large cost of buying the latest game as soon as it comes out. Others want to keep their copy, so they pay full whack. I'd say that the money gained from selling old games will go to new games in a lot of cases.

[JU_88]

I think in this case it would be more accurate to say that the devs get paid before the game is finished and will cease to be paid if SH5 add-ons or SH6 are cancelled.

No, I expect most of them will be assigned to work on other titles/projects thats all.
And I'm quite sure they recieve a monthy salary like most people.

[GlobalExplorer]

Looks like in order to play Silent Hunter you need a high speed internet connection, a bit of luck and a lawyer.

[Rosencrantz]

GlobalExplorer wrote:

Looks like in order to play Silent Hunter you need a high speed internet connection, a bit of luck and a lawyer.


:haha:


However, I still had at least three 100 % legal copies of SHIII, so if there won't be SHV or VI to me... then So be it.


-RC-

[Frederf]

Actually this is even bigger in consoles than PCs but strangely consoles are not subject to the crazy OSP crap.

Consoles will be subject to this same problem as soon as game developers start figuring out how to make games "one owner only" technologically. Already I have 200+ Rock Band DLC songs that I can never, ever sell.

[MercurySeven]

Im no console player, but aren't modern consoles all equipped with an internet port to connect to multiplayer? Should be an easy fix to hook up the console games to the same online requirements as pcs.

Oh, how I would love to hear the uproar when UBI announces THAT! Games like Assasins Creed 2 for XBOX and PS3 only playable if constant internet connection is available to the console. But hey, at least then the console players can take their game ... and play it on ANY console they like! (As long as it has their UBI account on it ...) How long did they have to wait for a wonderful feature like that? And of course: Resale is not allowed. :har: