You didn't buy a game from us. You bought it from some guy on Amazon.

Aye, I thought of that after I posted it.

Well,

I am utterly astonished Good Sir Froglegs tries to evade the altogether legitimate, if perhaps not justified, protest from the OP. It is quite clear that the OP means he bought a game *made* by Stardock. A good game, if you ask me. He would like some support and you, most likely, would generate some goodwill if he got it.

If I buy a 2nd hand Mercedes, I will still be able to get parts. I doubt Mercedes would disown their model just because it changed...feet

You may well take a different point of view as a company but it would appear that the OP has a better opinion of Bioware than he does of the bill-of-rights company residing right here.

As do I, by now, I am sorry to have to report.

The game is fine. The attitude here does not smell nice...and all my friends have now left.

Some self-reflection is in order, in my view.

Lucas aka Sinful

* ...; for the eye sees not itself,
* But by reflection, by some other things.
-
* Julius Caesar

Software and cars are not governed by the same laws.  Most of the time, when you buy software you are just buying the license to use it, you don't actually own it.  Software is intellectual property.  In this case, the license is non transferable.  Sometime read those huge contracts  to which you are constantly clicking "Yes, I agree".  You might find it fasinating what you are agreeing with.

Unisin

Before you start trying to paint Stardock in such a bad light perhaps you should consider what you would do as a software company in their position.  If you suggest that they sell licence keys for anything less than full retail price then I think it's probably a good thing you don't take up a career in marketing.

No they are not, but before you go off down this route of an argument, consider this:

1) With software you generally cannot check the EULA/licence until after you have bought it and opened it (which in the UK means that the shops won't even let you return it if you don't agree with the terms and conditions). And the guy bought the software which means that he COULD NOT check the licence agreement before buying it

2) With this argument, you buy it open it, and then don't install it because you don't agree wiyth the T&C's you can then legitimately sell it on (you must be able to as you haven't agreed to the contract).

3) Now, enter into the mix that for most games you can register them without having ever been presented with the EULA (and I quite regularly do), simply by entering the serial number and your email address on their website... What happens then if you decide that you do not want to install because you don't agree with the EULA.

So.... surely everyone should be getting their brassiers in a twist about the person selling it rather than the person who bought it. If you have a beef with anyone find the guy that sold it, but you cannot say "The EULA says this and that" when there IS NO WAY OF CHECKING THE EULA BEFORE YOU PURCHASE IT (people at Ironclad and Stardock take note of this).

The software industry is the ONLY industry to operate in this fashion (not let you see the terms and conditions until after you have purchased) and it is, frankly, dishonest.

And I think that from a legal point of view you will find this unenforceable with regards to selling a second hand copy of the game. In fact, most EULA's are bordering on unenforcable anyway - just like those warnings that companys put at the bottom of their emails....

Finally, in an era when we are getting more and more conscientious about recycling, what do you all suggest that we do with our used games? Throw them away? Keep them? Or sell them on/give them away? I for one would like the software industry to allow you to purchase a licence if you have been given the game (or bought it second hand). I realise that there would have to be certain safegaurds in place, but it's not impossible to do this.

Oh, and incidentally, I give away all my second hand games free to the local charity shops. The EULA does not (as far as I can see) expressly forbid that.

edit: corrected some spelling.

Nobody has any beef with anyone I think mate.  We are just pointing out the reason why Stardock is under no obligation to support the game of the guy who bought it off Amazon.  From a technical view the second hand seller on Amazon has deceived the buyer by only selling him the media on which the game is on, he has no right to sell the license to the software, so isn't Amazon also partly responsible for allowing this?

I don't really buy what you are saying.  Once you have read one software licensing agreement you know the basics of almost all of them, you know full well you are buying a license to use the software on the media and you have purchased the media itself, I don't think their is any attempt at deception here.  Are you suggesting licensing agreements should all be printed on the box somehow?  You are right that you don't see the licensing agreement until you have bought the product but in the UK you have every right to return the product for a refund if you don't accept the agreement, is this not the case in your country?

I work for a software engineering company so I can sympathise a lot more with the issues of selling a software product than you seem to.  Please understand I am not writeing this response as someone who is deliberately trying to be confrontational with your point of view, rather I am trying to make you understand that selling an application/game needs to be done in a different manner than some hardware with a limited lifespan.  How would a software company plan a strategy of making money if they had to support their software indeffinately and every time it is sold to a new user second hand?  This is more significant on the PC market than consoles because imagine how much it costs companies when MS releases a new operating system and makes the game not work, how many of the people contacting their support asking to get the software working did they originally get money off in a sale of a game?  Support costs companies a lot of money and each resale of a game will mean the next person owning it is likely to have their own problems they will contact support with.

I will stop at that in explanation, there are many more significant reasons why software is sold with the Licensing model it is these days.  It is not sinister or an attempt to con people, it is necessary I'm afraid.

Do you? Can you say that all EULA's are the same without looking at them. I think not. While they all share a lot of similarities, a lot also contain other snippets of information. Just look at the Google Chrome EULA fiasco just after it went to public beta (although admittedly you could look at that one before installing)....

No, but they're certainly not making it easy.

No, I don't mean this and I hope you don't mind me saying this, but that is a daft idea. A link to the publishers/developers website with the EULA on it on it on the box would be sufficuent for me, or failing that, for thos people without the internet, send a copy of the EULA to the shop so shoppers can peruse it should they so wish.

I think you may have got your wires crossed. In the UK it has to be defective, not fit for purpose or not sold as described or not needed. Not agreeing to the terms and conditions has to be done at the point of purchase (unless it's being sold at a distance or there is a defined cooldown period (like for insurance).

I too work for a software company and we sell licences to use our software, which brings me onto:

with which I repsond with...

There was a time when MS were doing this with Windows. In fact, I think they still allow you to purchase a licence if they detect that you have a pirated copy of Windows. If you get given the game from someone who has paid, or buy it cheap, why should you not be able to purchase a licence to use the game (at the full price or just under the full price of the game)?

Which I believe solves all your issues.

A Sins license can be bought online, well at least that's how I bought mine.

Well yeah.. he's referencing the "I have the game but no valid serial so I'd like to buy just the serial cheaper" deal. Basically, someone with a second hand copy would want to buy just the registration cheaply, because they already paid money to whoever for the box. But this of course opens up a lot of possibility for exploitation (as someone pointed out, you could just pirate it and ask for the registration) but even more basically - the registration *is* the game. With just the number you can download it however many times you like. So for Stardock to give you a registration, it means they give you the full-priced game. It's not like most other games where the cd key is only used for installation/MP check and to make use of it you need the game in the first place.

With Sins, you don't need the game - all you need is the registration and then you can get the game, see? So SD giving out registrations on the cheap is like selling you the whole game on the cheap. It might make sense to the second-hand buyer because they paid *someone* for the box, but SD didn't see a penny of it, so why would they do this?

Well I meant to quote his second point also but missed it:

Which implies he thinks it's fair for SD to sell the License to such a user at full price, I was pointing out there is already that option.

Depending on where you live, it's not clear to which degree EULAs are enforceable. In Holland, it's arguable that an EULA is a "general conditions" type document. And consumer rights on such a document are strong.

To have effect, the general conditions have to be presented in paper to the consumer at the moment the contract is made (that is, the moment of the actual sale). If that's really unpractical (again, the goal is to protect the consumer, not to make life easier on the seller), the consumer can be referred to the Chamber of commerce or a judicial court and offer to mail them afterwards. For digital agreements (read: downloads, not software in a box!), the consumer must be presented the conditions in a manner which can be saved for future reference as well as easily printed (Note: needing to cut&paste into an external file is not easily printed!). Again, if that's truly inpractical, the consumer can be referred to an external source and must be offered to have the (e)mailed.

So, it's not exactly clear that the original seller can necessarily be held to the EULA as such.

ANAL, but who takes legal advice from an internet forum anyway