OFFICIAL: Not allowed to resell the Game!

[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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Uber Gruber

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..

[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.

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

Its $2 for him cos I like his butch nature

Price remains $5 to you though Thomen...

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by Uber Gruber

Price remains $5 to you though Thomen...

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

[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..

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by 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..

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]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Thomen

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kapitanleutnant

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]

Originally Posted by Kapitanleutnant

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.