Well let's put it this way, she can go to a net cafe and effectively purchase her patch by redownloading Impulse and SOASE again, and then purchase a large enough stick to put it all on, that is assuming they will allow you to download and install Impulse. Or she could go to work, log in to her account, download the patch for free, take it home on a much smaller stick (which she has a 512MB) and then patch the game.

Sure she can ask me to give her a DVD of my patched up game but considering that she moved away months ago and we're now living over 100 miles away, it'll be another expense for something that should be free, but in this instance the expense is on myself.

Keep in mind that at work she can't download any games as they have a strict bandwidth limit per employee, and if they caught her downloading a game she'd be sacked, so it's very different with or without Impulse. A patch is different and quite a sizable chunk smaller.

And how is it the same with Linux? The game has never supported it so that's irrelevant. And no, having no net access is not "so low" at all, it's far from that.

Off topic: (Sorry)

Someone said that if no one breaks the law that doesn't mean we don't need cops.

YES IT DOES!

I know the vast majority of humans can't escape the multiple forms of Slave/Master brainwashing we suffer starting from birth to death, but once your mind escapes the plantation and isn't being whipped into line you'd be suprised at what greatness freedom offers even if you have to work (think) harder for what you can attain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back on topic:

Actually, no one answered what happens WHEN (not if)  the update data is no longer being supported or hosted. Of course the answer is simple, we cannot patch. Sure I could copy, .zip, then burn my entire updated directory to a DVD but that does nothing to help other people update, and down the line will lead to a need to use same copies of the game and hack it so people can use them and configure a third party multiplayer matchup. Having the ability to transfer it to a third party site would save them hard-drive space and bandwidth for their newest games as well.


I think a truly successful game is one people are still playing ten years later. (I still have atari 2600 with Pacman etc. , a 486 DOS computer, not to mention many other things.) Take NWN for example. Hundreds if not thousands of people playing it every day. They have done TONS of extra work for the game past "functionality" they weren't payed for and did so until just a few months ago when they finally said that's that, no more first party updates. In fact a few companies after a certain amount of time *gasp* release certain rights of a game or parts of it so it's not considered piracy to dowload for free. One company did so as a promotion for the newest game in the series.


To say a resale of a game is a lost new sale is pure fantasy, let's not fool ourselves nor anyone else. The people who are buying them weren't willing to pay X for a game and if it doesn't drop below that they just won't buy it. I just bought 4 really good (console) games both new and used for around $20 each even though I knew I wanted them when they were $40.

It's the old Æsop's fable: When the fox couldn't get a bunch of grapes he he wanted he said they were bad "sour grapes". That being said I got to thinking what agreement game rental places and movie theatres have. They pay some kind of royalties or w/e the technical term is, and game companies should work out some deal or law where royalties are payed to them instead of making us suffer since resale is pure profit for retailers.


I'm not "innocent" by any means, but I truly feel I lost a some of what little innocence I had left after this. Now I have to conduct in depth research on what protections games have before buying them, which ends impulse buys. It seems like your company is just trying to protect itself not to be greedy. I guess I can only hope the next game won't punish honest users because of the vile thieves who just take what they want. I like to end on a positive note, so let me say "Thank You" to this company and the moderators of the forum for actually allowing free speech when every other blocks words and ideas.

 

 you should reread what i said mate, I said that just because HE does not break the law.... (if we ever get to the point where human moral is high enough we can ofc get rid of cops etc...

I fail to understand how blocking second hand sales streamlines support costs and your development process.



You're using them as an excuse. Being able to sell used games should be a basic consumer right unless there's a good reason why it can't be done. Period.


Oh, those poor, poor people. How could they possible survive the enormous costs of letting third party servers host their patches? Clearly Impulse, which has no operational costs whatsoever, is the only solution.


I already said I don't remember what it costs, and I don't remember anyone asking where I bought it from (and I have already said on multiple occasions that I bought it from a game store).


Newsflash: human memory is imperfect. I cannot remember everything.


There is no problem to solve since I no longer have the game. I'm sure I've mentioned that many times by now.


A small, independent game store in a city of less than 100,000 people in a European country. I can't understand what you could possibly do with this information.

The rest of your questions are equally meaningless. While you're at it why don't you ask how many times I masturbated that week (I can't remember, sorry).


Stardock has no intention of doing anything about this, since they don't perceive it as a problem. They chose to deliberately block second hand sales.


It'll probably end when people stop making slippery slope arguments that have no basis in reality. Stardock can't be responsible for people leaving out items from games they sell. No publisher or manufacturer can be held responsible for such things. There are certain inherent risks to buying used goods.

I believe they may be asking this because most game stores have actually stopped accepting returns/trades of PC games, and that's all down to demon-damned Sony DADC and EA (who can't even release a DEMO without putting Securom on it and limiting to 5 activations).

Also, I don't know if you caught Kryo's response in page 1 or 2 or so, but I think you'll find Stardock's reason for not being willing to help you out to be to do with the fact that the original owner is still able to download and play the game, thanks to Impulse (and the digital download of even retail purchased games).  Theoretically, you can resell an Impulse managed game by providing the account details (login and password) with the game box, which is what should have happened.  It's not optimal, and could definitely stand to get some improvements, so why not provide some constructive criticism (this means an entire post without any of the following words, which you might find difficult: fuck, shit, damn, ass, crap)

Move out your parents basement and spend the extra $10 on a non-used version.

Not very constructive. 

It is not important enough for you to remember but it is important enough for you to put up numerous posts resulting in 8 pages of stuff on this forum?

Then why are continuing to post here? Since you don't have the game, don't play the game, are positively fed up with SD's policies, why are you still here? Why not leave the rest of us in peace?

I didn't ask you meaningless questions like how many times you pleasure yourself - I asked pertitnent questions (which you have not answered) like Are there any other items missing from the box you bought second hand - like Keyboard fold out ref or music CD? Are there? Or is missing items from the box not that important?

The fact that this thread has been allowed to go this far without being locked is already a credit to SD. So I think if any company were to listen - try asking EA to change their policies - SD would be the ones to do so. The truth is, you only want to complain on this forum, but when you have to do something real about it - write an email to [email protected] with your real email addy - you fall short.

I 110% agree with you! That's right - no publisher or manufacturer can be held responsible for people leaving out items from games they sell second hand. In your case, the person left out one important item - the licensing - from the box you bought second hand. Then, as you yourself said, how can SD/IC be responsible?

 

 

game

set

match

 

/end thread

All I know is since I live in the United States, I am protected by the First-Sale Doctrine which allows me to transfer any copyrighted work in its entirety. Both Supreme Court cases involving almost this exact situation have found that EULAs are NOT binding contracts because they can only be agreed to after the purchase has been made or the software opened. I don't read EULAs because they don't mean a damn thing where I live.

 

 

I guarantee if someone with enough time and money would actually get the process started they could finally rid the U.S of this non-transferable bullshit "Contract" once and for all.

What did I say about leaving out words like "fuck", "shit", "damn", "ass", etc?  It gives you more credibility if these are not present in your argument.

Anyway, back to the actual topic: Stardock lets you transfer the game if you want, but to do so, you must fork over the account the game is linked to.  The reason behind this is that the person who has access to the linked account can redownload the game at any time, even without the physical media.  Got a problem with that?  Complain to the person who gave it to you.

Also, the US Supreme Court has never touched a court case involving EULAs (except the two from Blizzard, and Blizzard WON those) so you really should get back to reading.  EULAs are perfectly binding, provided there is a mechanism to return the product if you do not agree.  I don't necessarily agree with the EULAs at all, but that's the (current) law, so I (and you) need to live with it.

In 1990, this law as been ammended to exclude any goods stored on a digital media. That includes games, movies, programs, music etc...

Even if it was protected by the first-sale doctrine, you got exactly that. You got a DVD with version 1.0, the manual, and the CD key printed on the back of the manual. Knowing that the game was used, you would be stupid to expect that you could use the same key as if it were new.

If somebody came up to you with a $15 iTunes gift card, with the code scratched off, and offered to sell it to you for $15, would you buy it? The code is good for a one-time use activation in either case, be it Sins or iTunes. In the case of iTunes, it credits $15 to the iTunes account of the person who uses it. In the case of Sins, it authorizes the stardock account to download Sins at any time, and to download updates for Sins through impulse. Why would you expect it to work in either case?

They're able to keep playing because the game lacks copy protection, which is a choice that the developers/publishers made.


Translation: I cannot find any faults in this guy's arguments so I'll just bitch about his use of swearing even though it makes no difference.


I live in my own apartment that's located on the second floor of a building. I don't see how you could successfully argue that I'm living in my mother's basement (which has no basement since it's a second story apartment). I also don't see how my living arrangements are in any way relevant to anything that's been discussed in this thread. I guess you're just trying to change the subject.


These two things have no meaningful connection to each other.


Nobody is forcing you to read this thread, let alone post in it.


These questions are meaningless and arbitrary.


In what way does any of this disprove the fact that Stardock is guilt of greed by intentionally preventing second hand sales?


It was their choice to intentionally and arbitrarily make second hand sales problematic. It is easily within their power to fix this. It was also their choice to not alert consumers about the issue. Again, easily fixed. There's also the default assumption that second hand games work the same as new ones. A missing instruction manual etc. in a second hand game is not something that a publisher can reasonably be held accountable for. SoaSE's license key was in the game's box, and the account that the key is linked to did not come with the game.


Maybe you should have waited for my response first. I really hate forum idiots like you who post "LOLOLLOOLL OWNED!!111" before the exchange is even over.


No it doesn't. Swearing neither increases nor decreases credibility. There is no rational argument to be made against swearing.

 

this is agree with,b im kindasick of ppl that think swear words are *bad*.

 

but try and make an argument based on logic instead of how you feeel the world should work, all your post's read like QQ i can't get the full game with full support for ½price.

that makes you look, well not very smart(not saying that your not) and you pretty much ignore every counter made

They made this choice to encorage first sales, not prevent second.  That, however, is an by-product.  reqwarding people that give them money seems like a good idea.I agree that (while the the inability to transfer licenses is pretty standard) this *could* be more lear.I disagree.  What you think is an assumption, I don't.  I can't think of software that did not have a EULA that *didn't* have a clause preventing the transfer of a license.

So they decided to encourage first sales by preventing second sales, yet this does not mean that they decided to prevent second sales.

Uh... okay. Makes sense.


(Insert any reprehensible behavior here) seems like a good idea.


This has nothing to do with EULAs. Go ask people how many of them think "oh gee, but the EULA doesn't allow this" when they're thinking of purchasing a used game. Fact: people assume that a used game works just as well as a new one. Because they almost always do, and when they don't there tends to be a good reason for it (greediness not being one of them).

i kidna dont get your post :/?

Customer support is the only thing i have to remind u about,   then you ofcourse will start about the fact that he spend 1/2 of the money .. when in turn i'll reply by reminding you what a customer is... well here it is

simple,  he spend his money purchasing the product (SoaSE) from the supplier or seller (tough not directly.. he DID make a purchase) albeit 1/2 of what you paid,  this doesnt mean he should get 1/2 of the customer support that would sound more like jealousy towards him

 

in the end, tough  it doesnt matter shit,  he returned the game "i dont say he was wrong about that either, these days your better of with nothing then to try and get what you deserve, and in the process losing even more"

to all of you out there who try to argue about this,  you shouldnt, so far i've seen ALOT of statements that are simply False, you can't make a statement based on false facts.

 

to epiclulz, you returned the game. and i dont fully understand why you're still trying to get your righty.  people here "peopel anywhere for that matter" never give in to what they believe is right or true unless ofocurse the opposite can be shown in such matter that it's overwhelmingly obvious...(that's what makes us humans dumb i guess)

you know you're right,  i know you're right and surely there's more that actually bothered thinknig about the subject and know you're right... as an example just look at what theyre writing. constantly trying to change the subject to their favor, or some strange insults.. that..strangly look more like compliments IMHO.

so whats keeping you here?  SD's never gonna do anything about it, nobody would as long as theres no profit for them just one unsatisfied customer, that won't ruin theyre Customer friendly reputation. and as soon as more complains come in, they'll fix it, and get shoulder pad's for it.....  that's how it works... that's how it'll always work   The world is a fucked up place..

and all i can think of is laugh about how we're slowly destroying everything  

 

then he should complain about no suport from the  supplier HE BOUGHT IT FROM.

 

SD/IC are in no way affiliated with the transaction he has made, why do they owe him anything?

 

 

 

 

 

 

don't assume it makes you look stupied

From the look of it, he did get full support - From the retailer that sold him the second-hand product.

The fundamental disagreement here is over who owes what to second-hand customers in the case of software.  It's a question of whether it's reasonable to expect a company to provide free service for a product to a person who, by all accounts, is not their customer (especially while the original customer still has total access to the game and related patches).

 

 

And once again I remind you that epiclulz is not, in fact, a customer. He did not buy it from a licensed reseller. He bought it from a second hand shop. Second hand sales are not quite as legal as you think, atleast by US law, not to mention EULAs.

First off: I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANOTHER SINGLE PERSON SAYING: "It says so in the EULA!". Because no matter what the EULA says, by the time you read it you have already unwrapped the damn game and relinquished your rights to return it. GOTTIT?!!?!?!?

Reaching page 5 I no longer bothered to read more because it was all the same, but I wonder:

 

Could it all be a simple misunderstanding? I too, like epiclulz, believe that patches should be freely available for download, for many reasons. If you are without internet at your own place, you can download it elsewhere and bring them back home on a pendrive for one.

But, I don't believe content updates should be freely available... 

To clarify, if I buy a game at a store (whether if it is new or unused is irrelevant), and this game contains some critical bugs making the game crash, not run, run poorly, etc, regardless if I am with an internet connection I should be able to get a patch for that. After all that is what patches are, they're patching it up because it's flawed/broken/whatever.

I am not a big fan of a second hand games (not buying or selling them) but since it is not illegal it should be supported or very CLEARLY flagged on the box of the retail version that it is not possible to utilize the games full extent(features/updates/patches without a license, and that the license that is included is only usable once. Now I know this, many know this, but some don't, and that does not make them stupid.

I don't like the decision SD/IC has made with Sins. I don't like the fact that I am only able to download patches/updates with Impulse because it goes against my opinions on that matter, and I feel like I am being treated like a person who only gets to see his kids under supervision by a government employee.

We are reaching a new time in the gaming industry, where the developer has to be smart as to secure the maximum amount of profit or attain the least amount of loss, whichever works for you. In this day and time no one is to be trusted to be honest individuals.

Now for good measure, I would like to say to epiclulz credit, that i don't believe you are a 13 year old teen-angst boy sitting at home at your momma upset because you spent your last penny of your allowance, and I do believe you are fairly intelligent as well.

..... But you are stubborn as a horny donkey!! While discussion and arguments are great, this has gone too far. No longer are you attempting to prove your point but simply disprove everyone elses points (failing at it by the way). You fail to see and realize that this is not a factual discussion but merely stating opinions and that everyone here is right in their own way because it is what they believe. Ok so a few have said some quite hilarious things, but none have said as many hysterical things as you Epic. It is my belief, of which I could be wrong (I have no doubt you will try to disprove this too), that you feel very, very, very, very, very wronged over SD/IC DRM policies.

 

You can forget about winning this argument epic. So can the rest of us, because we're all idiots, and we all know the famous saying... But I think you may be the most experienced of us, Epic, although you do write interestingly and prettily... yeah I bet your handwriting is cool too... Do you have soft hands? Is it ok, if I think of you as my sexy hot latina neighbour? Mmmmmmmm that's it baby

 

C'mon... I'm ready for you epic, it's Christmas, I'm very depressed, if you hurt me bad enough I may even cut myself.... c'mon...

 

Version 1.00 works fine and does not crash, your point is moot.

 

 

it IS illigal, your point is moot.

 

 

you may be

It's relevant in this case because the original buyer still has complete access to the game and all subsequent patches.  After selling the disc, there's absolutely nothing stopping him/her from logging on to Impulse, downloading a fresh copy of Sins, and patching it to top form.  Once the account is made, you don't even need the disc anymore.   

Should the patching requirements be highlighted?  Sure.  Why not.  Nothing wrong with that information being available.  Should second-hand software sales be actively supported by game developers?  We may wish that to be the case but from their perspective, it would be like actively supporting a bootlegging enterprise.  Why on earth would they want to do that?