Selling Civ 5

[Aivoturso]

What are you talking about? The OP made the same thread on the 2k forums and was given the answer. That is why I am asking whats the point of asking the same question here.

I read the thread (mostly) and can perfectly understand why OP asked the question elsewhere. Maybe he wanted an actual answer instead of ranting and raving and purposeful derailing of the discussion that went on in that thread.

Ooh, that's a good find (although it shows you how I, like most people in the world, don't actually read EULAs ). My fear is that Steam itself has its own EULA that is far harsher.

From what I could gather from the thread in 2k forums is that at least it is generally believed that Steam does not support onsell of the games. Steam EULA is a bit ambiguous on the subject though. Only part that says anything related I could find was: "You are entitled to use the Software for your own use, but you are not entitled to: (i) sell, grant a security interest in or transfer reproductions of the Software to other parties in any way, nor to rent, lease or license the Software to others without the prior written consent of Valve..."

On the other hand Steam EULA defines Software in following manner: "Steam and your Subscription(s) require the automatic download and installation of software and other content and updates onto your computer ("Software")." So in essence they define Software as the actual binaries and then say you can't sell them forward. IMO, there really isn't any clause in either 2k or Steam EULA that would explicitely prohibit selling pre-owned product.

However, since Steam provides the registration service, if Steam support says, they won't let you deactivate the product despite EULAs not really covering the issue, there isn't really much anyone can do apart from takin legal action. Though these kind of restrictions irritate me to no end, it's really not worth fighting a costly and tiring legal battle against large corporation for 50 bucks.

 

[kooboo]

Thank You for all replies. Since I had no opportunity to answer earlier, here's my mass reply

Have you tried Steam support?

Not yet, didn't have enough time before work. I will try it though now.

'Compare the price to the hours of entertainment and replayability, not the cost'

I did this math. Approximately 45$ for 20 hours of poor (in my opinion) entertainment. The result is 2,25$ per hour which is sky high compared to what I got with, say, Civ4.
Mass produced, main stream and pop culture products usually gives way cheaper entertainment (I know it's my fault for being hasty customer - learned my lesson.)
I've just made a calculation of my friend who's playing World of Warcraft - a game with subscription - 150 days of gameplay (3600 hours) playing since TBC (Jan 2007) with prepaids (25$ per two months) gives approximately 0,13$ per hour! And that's only on one character (I know she's a no-life ), where she has many more but not that much played.

Damn it, I have a lot of friends who have played it/demo at my house and can not wait to buy it right now

Using popular way of speaking here - I might or might not have a solution for one of Your friends

IT IS ABSOLUTELY a VIOLATION of YOUR RIGHTS NOT to be able to SELL YOUR PROPERTY, unless there is a CLEAR DISCLAIMER at the time of purchase that says you can not (which there definitely is not).

It should say on the FRONT OF THE BOX in BOLD LETTERS that once you buy this game you can NEVER GET RID OF IT. You are paying $50 for a CONSUMABLE not a piece of PROPERTY.

That's about how I feel. Outside company (Valve and their Steam) are holding my property (my activation key which I physically posses) and stopping me from selling the game. They wouldn't lose anything by my trade. Even more - they could gain! It's clear that almost every re-registration costs something. Selling car or a house costs (alterations for legal documents, civil law notary signatures etc.) - and I'm perfectly aware of that. I'd probably pay 5$ or 10$ for their hassle. For a possibility to transfer my license elsewhere.

This thread teaches me, I should buy each STEAM game with a newly created account, in case I need to sell the game to someone else.

STEAM can put whatever in their licensing agreement... I just DON'T care.

It is ridiculous for a seller to stop his customer from selling a bought product...

Fortunately (for me) it's my first Steam game and I will probably handle Steam (or steam-like) games this way as well.

What are you talking about? The OP made the same thread on the 2k forums and was given the answer.

You're confusing me with someone else. This is my first thread relating to this topic. I even did my research but proper question was nowhere to be found. Since I was using these forums for few years now (and lurking for even more) and knew this particular community attitude towards Civ5 - I asked here. Because perhaps someone was strong willed enough to enforce his.

did not know there was a thread started in the 2K forums, by the same OP (if it is the same OP).

It is not the same OP I don't even have 2K forums account.

In other words Kooboo, we bought (Steam) toilet paper, and the right to use it.
When used, you cannot sell it back.

I guess this allegory is very precise.
On the funny side - there are people that want that paper and rights anyway

 

[blind biker]

I guess this allegory is very precise.
On the funny side - there are people that want that paper and rights anyway

After playing Civ V, I'd say toilet paper is more useful. And more pleasant.

 

[markantony]

You're confusing me with someone else. This is my first thread relating to this topic. I even did my research but proper question was nowhere to be found. Since I was using these forums for few years now (and lurking for even more) and knew this particular community attitude towards Civ5 - I asked here. Because perhaps someone was strong willed enough to enforce his.

I see that I made a mistake there. I confused you with a guy with a very similar name. My apologies.

 

[katipunero]

Though these kind of restrictions irritate me to no end, it's really not worth fighting a costly and tiring legal battle against large corporation for 50 bucks.

no. it's the other way around. it's not worth for these companies to incur litigation expenses to fight for a case that could probably even be decided against their favor.

 

[Fabien]

no. it's the other way around. it's not worth for these companies to incur litigation expenses to fight for a case that could probably even be decided against their favor.

They don't have to, they can revoke your account at any point of time if you break their Eula. They seem to do that on a daily basis for people who share their accounts.

 

[Slowpoke]

no. it's the other way around. it's not worth for these companies to incur litigation expenses to fight for a case that could probably even be decided against their favor.

Exactly, look up class action lawsuits kat, it's usually a matter of just saying "I bought a copy" and magic lawyer power happens. Spore lost theirs against it's drm I think, although I haven't found out exactly what the settlement was. But I doubt a CAL would win against steam honestly.

 

[katipunero]

They don't have to, they can revoke your account at any point of time if you break their Eula. They seem to do that on a daily basis for people who share their accounts.

well, good then. or even better if deactivation is the only penalty Steam implements. in OP's case he could sell his steam account for a small price with a caveat that it might get deactivated by Steam. if someone agrees and takes the deal then that would be the end of it.

if the account does not get deactivated, then good for the second buyer. if it does, then that was part of their agreement.

EDIT: For purposes of this thread, what we have here is a simple case of a disgruntled OP who's thoroughly disappointed with the game and would not have anything to do with it anymore. He wants to cut his loses and move on. Since refund is not something that's going to fly with STEAM (if there are refund policies, OP must refund before the time expires if there are any) then he's left with no choice but either to lose 50 bucks for nothing and suck it up or transfer the ownership of the game for a price. i think he's justified in whichever option he later chooses. it's not like he's doing it large scale and by syndicate for STEAM to specifically go after him (and good luck serving summons to OP). STEAM could just deactivate the account if it wants to. End of story. C'est la vie. A class action suit is not even necessary.

 

[guenzak]

First, let me say I like this game and I'm not selling my copy, BUT... as for these gaming companies...

IT IS ABSOLUTELY a VIOLATION of YOUR RIGHTS NOT to be able to SELL YOUR PROPERTY, unless there is a CLEAR DISCLAIMER at the time of purchase that says you can not (which there definitely is not).

It should say on the FRONT OF THE BOX in BOLD LETTERS that once you buy this game you can NEVER GET RID OF IT. You are paying $50 for a CONSUMABLE not a piece of PROPERTY.

Blizzard is the same way and I absolutely HATED Starcraft2 and I DID SELL IT and I gave away my account in the process (as outlined in this thread). NEVER TO RETURN TO BLIZZARD AGAIN!!!

So to those of you who say that this is 'fair' and 'good' and that the gaming companies are coming out ahead, you are WRONG and so are THEY. People won't put up with it forever. People like me who have been dedicated gamers for years and spent thousands of dollars on games will LEAVE.

It is sad, I wanted to play Diablo 3 soooo bad. But nope. They lost me when THEY said that I can not sell MY property. I bet you in the grand scheme of things they are coming out almost exactly even to where they would if you could transfer your games. So sad.

But here is the problem...it is definately not a violation of YOUR RIGHTS because it is not YOUR PROPERTY. Nowhere does it say that you are purchasing their developed software and it definitely does not say you are purchasing the rights to their software to do with or distribute as you please. You do not purchase games through steam you purchase a license to play it.

I'm not saying this is the way game developers should or shouldn't be handling things. But they don;t sell the software, they sell a licence to use it.

 

[Louis XXIV]

no. it's the other way around. it's not worth for these companies to incur litigation expenses to fight for a case that could probably even be decided against their favor.

Actually, you're both wrong. The answer would be a class action lawsuit. That allows the little guy to make an impact.

Now I don't see that working because I think steam is legally right (and the lesser of all evils when it comes to DRM), but that would be the way to go.

 

[bryanw1995]

Since you can buy a game for another Steam subscriber's account as a gift I see no reason why you should not be allowed to 'deactivate' the licence to use a particular game on your own Steam account and transfer the licence to another registered Steam user's account ... in what way would this be bad for Steam, if they already allow you to buy games as gifts for other subscribers? (I.e. so that you don't have to buy two copies, one for yourself and one for them?)

steam makes more $$$ if the person who would have bought the used copy for, say $30 instead buys a new copy from them for $50 (or $40, $35, or whatever ciV is going for these days).

I'm not suggesting anything to the OP, but perhaps it would be possible to "give somebody access to your steam account for money" instead of just selling the account. let said person then install ciV on his computer, then change your password. it would be a hassle but certainly possible. he even gets to keep the physical cd/etc.

 

[katipunero]

Actually, you're both wrong. The answer would be a class action lawsuit. That allows the little guy to make an impact.

Now I don't see that working because I think steam is legally right (and the lesser of all evils when it comes to DRM), but that would be the way to go.

A class action lawsuit by one man? i've never heard of such monstrosity. his entire beef is owning and paying for a product that's a dud. let him dispose of it as he will. my suggestion? sell the dvd as paperweight with no account or playing rights. there are enough suckers in this world who would probably buy it.
Moderator Action: That's fraud, and we don't support that here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Surgeon]

heh arguments here like theres an option. Even console games are crawling towards a no second hand sales environment (project ten dollar). As soon as they can sell games exclusively via the web (wiiware,Live!, PSN) console second hand sales will be gone too. You can squeal but the plain facts are that to be seen encouraging games is political poision so its never going to change (well maybe in 10+ years when the baby boomers are dead)

 

[GenericPlayer]

Game publishers do not like second hand sales as it is a market they get no cut of. Its sad that we have moved from owning games to 'owning a non-transferable license' to play a game. But consumers have not voted with their pocket books and consumer advocacy groups have not really taken on software companies.

Speaking for myself, I never used to sell any of the games I bought, and frequently lost some of my older games due to friends who never returned them or simply lost to the rigors of time and/or moving. There are days I wish I could revisit my Wing Commander or Ultima collection. So when I was told about steam a few years ago, it was an easy choice for me. Most other digital download providers have the same restrictions.

That being said, I believe it is totally wrong that people who did not buy a digital download not be able to sell off their game. Even the devil in this industry, EA, did not take such drastic measures with Mass Effect 2. Each game shipped with a coupon code that gave the user some in-game extras (e.g. weapons, armor...etc). Thus people with store bought copies could sell them, they just could not sell the goodies that were issued with the coupon.

So using steam effectively means that there are no 'real' or 'physical' copies of Civ 5. When you buy the CD, all you are doing is saving the time of the download. But in every way that matters, your copy of the game is still a digital copy.

 

[blind biker]

The good thing for us NOT living in the USA is, we can walk into the shop where we bought the game, and as long as the box is in good condition and all the contents are present inside it, you can get a refund. You might have to fill out a simple form, but that's all. At least here in Finland that's how it goes (and how it went for me).

 

[plesniak]

I think it is very laughable that the software/gaming industry is doing this. Have they not taken notes from all the "musical artists" that ripped us off with their 1 good song per 12 track tapes/cds...Now, thanx to the internet, the consumer that was ripped off for years absolutely changed the music industry as it once was. Napster and the like kicked the shat out of that industry.

Right now gaming/software companies are obviously trying to stem the bleeding from illegal copying of their product...The Chinese as well as a few other countries absolutely laugh at the piracy rules. The companies that are found to be giving the worst value in software, over time, will eventually be unable to continue in business. They will go broke because everyone will be flouting thier rules and driving them under. I predict Steam will be one of these companies

According to posts on this and other websites, Civ 5 and even the latest patches have been cracked in a couple of days and available to those who wanted them. As these companies tighten the screws people will get sicker and sicker of thier shat...pretty soon they will not be able to stay in business unless they give consumers real value for thier money...its kinda like survival of the fittest. More smart people are trying to figure out ways to defeat companies like Steam than there are people trying to help them.

So, let Steam make unfair rules that only benefit them...the tables turn very quickly. In the mean time don't worry about Steams EULA, Just make your OWN set of rules that Steam doesn't get to know about before you buy their product...whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

For the OP...The way I see it is Steam OWES you a game because they have tricked you with a well hidden agreement that you don't get to see until you have already bought the game. Simple.

 

[Iranon]

There are 2 very different considerations here:

1) Will or should lawmakers do anything about it?
2) Will or should customers do anything about it?

The first is limited by its nature. In most legislations, restrictive licenses themselves are accepted, the absolute most they could do is say 'that's not a purchase, don't pretend it is'.
It's just a question of whether legal uncertainty in some places is more or less damaging to Steam than drawing customers' attention to their very limited rights according to the contract.

The second really depends on how serious we are about the complaints. If we are, we should be able to assign a monetary value to things that annoy us... and subtract it from the price we'd otherwise be willing to pay.
If we complain loudly but are still willing to pay full price for incomplete rights to an incomplete game, we lose credibility.

 

[CladInShadows]

One way to think about it is that when purchasing a game like Civ5 that uses Steam or any similar system, is that it is not the software itself that you are paying for, but the act of activating it for use with your account. The software is then something that is given for free upon this purchase.

The software itself is quite worthless. It is similar to a subscription game like World of Warcraft, except that for Civ 5 a single payment will grant a subscription that lasts indefinitely, rather than having to be renewed at regular intervals. I have often seen WoW trial copies cold in stores for $2. These contain the exact same files and software as the full edition, the only difference is that the activation code given will only allow the game to be unlocked for 2 weeks. As the full edition ($80 when release), and the $2 trial edition contain the same software, it is clear that it is instead the activation that one is paying for.

As a digital game that is run through an online service, Civ 5 runs the same way, despite the differences in payment structures.

It must therefore be treated as a service. The act of re-selling then does not make much sense, because what you paid for is an event which has already occurred. For example, if I pay $50 for a back massage, I cannot then try a week later to sell that massage to someone else, because what I paid for is a service that has already happened. Similarly, when I signed up to Steam 2 months ago and paid for Civ 5, the act of unlocking the game for my account happened then, and there is no reason to think that this used service could somehow be resold.

 

[Stilgar08]

I think it is very laughable that the software/gaming industry is doing this...

Couldn't agree more! To the whole post. And the only way to show them (steam and distributors) you don't accept the ongoing loss of consumer-rights is by not buying the game.
Even if it means ending a lifelong civ-addiction. I'm playing civIV right now, started a new game with BAT-mod - couldn't be happier!

One way to think about it is that when purchasing a game like Civ5 that uses Steam or any similar system, is that it is not the software itself that you are paying for, but the act of activating it for use with your account. The software is then something that is given for free upon this purchase.

I prefer to own the software, thank you very much. And it's not like that:

The difference is that WOW and abonnements state you're not owning the Software and it's not on your computer. Steam just reglements how you are allowed to use your own stuff (hard- and software) just like other companies do nowadays... (help me out here; I'm just not buying those games where it's written on the box that internet connection and registration on this and that is required (Bioware?). Not along my alley...

 

[blind biker]

One way to think about it is that when purchasing a game like Civ5 that uses Steam or any similar system, is that it is not the software itself that you are paying for, but the act of activating it for use with your account. The software is then something that is given for free upon this purchase.

The software itself is quite worthless. It is similar to a subscription game like World of Warcraft, except that for Civ 5 a single payment will grant a subscription that lasts indefinitely, rather than having to be renewed at regular intervals. I have often seen WoW trial copies cold in stores for $2. These contain the exact same files and software as the full edition, the only difference is that the activation code given will only allow the game to be unlocked for 2 weeks. As the full edition ($80 when release), and the $2 trial edition contain the same software, it is clear that it is instead the activation that one is paying for.

As a digital game that is run through an online service, Civ 5 runs the same way, despite the differences in payment structures.

It must therefore be treated as a service. The act of re-selling then does not make much sense, because what you paid for is an event which has already occurred. For example, if I pay $50 for a back massage, I cannot then try a week later to sell that massage to someone else, because what I paid for is a service that has already happened. Similarly, when I signed up to Steam 2 months ago and paid for Civ 5, the act of unlocking the game for my account happened then, and there is no reason to think that this used service could somehow be resold.

Had Valve been upfront and clear about this, that what is sold online and in brick-and-mortar shops is NOT a product but a service, they would have no problem in a EU court of law. As it stands, however, they could and indeed should be fined for deception. Or just refund the purchase and continue operating as if it is not a service.