Correction: gaming companies want them to be legally binding contracts. I'm pretty sure that's not the case in most of the world that isn't corporate America (insert Arec Bardwin joke here).

I would rather buy a used game (depending of the condition) then a new one, specially if the games is a classic.

That's because no one has sued them over it. Surprisingly enough, most people don't have the millions of dollars necessary to do that.

Plus, several Circuit courts have already ruled on EULAs - some have found them to be enforceable, while others have not. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States

Well, in my defense this isn't about Steam, so yeah.

In any case, someone explained it to me differently and I see your point. If you buy a physical copy of a single player game you shouldn't have to go online to activate it.

Just because people use Steam, doesn't mean they're all happy about it. I know a few who never wanted to ever go on Steam but were forced to do so to play Skyrim. Given the choice, they wouldn't be a part of the million who play on Steam everyday. So there is fault in your logic that just because someone uses a forced service that they're a-ok with it.

Also, the EULA is written in a way that you could read it as a secondary clause that keeps consumers from reselling the game as their own. I don't own the rights to the game just because I own a copy of said game. I understand this is applied by the copyright laws, but I fail to see how anyone can tell me that I paid them for the cost, plus extra, for a product and yet they retain the right to take it away at anytime. You can't sell me a car and then decide later that it's outdated or you don't like the way I'm using it and then take it away from me. If I'm not breaking any laws - running people over with it, using it in a bank robbery, etc. - then you have no grounds to take my property away from me.

I'm extremely disappointed to see people so nonchalant about the whole deal. They are retaining the rights and posession over YOUR stuff. You shouldn't be ok with that.

The problem is that software is not physical property. Not even close. You can't copy a car. You can copy software and distribute it to as many people as you want with a few short clicks of the mouse. You can sell your car - because you only can have one car. You could easily burn 500 copies of some software and sell each one. And if you really wanted to get fancy, buy some LightScribe discs and most people wouldn't know the difference.

People are getting confused. You don't own the game itself and it's content. You own the license to it, to play it, and to do whateve ryou want with said license to said content. Otherwise people would claim to be able to own donald duck or mickey mouse or gods knows what other things. So no you don't own that content, just the license to watch it. So you can still or should still be able to sell it. I mean the license was covered, who cares who gets it? Right? Not you since you've sold that disc. Also you own the physical disc as well.

Copyright ownership of stuff on disc = Nope.
License to view stuff on disc = yup, you can do whatever you like with it. Your license, there's no requirements to obtaining it other than buying the game and agreeing to the eula which may or may not be enforcable depending.
Physical disc itself - yep. Again do what you like with it.

I'm just posting to clarfiy this, as some people seem to be unaware of the difference.

Please point out where I said someone who is forced to use Steam automatically likes it.

My point is that there are millions of ppl who use it daily. If that many ppl enjoy something that isn't a game or movie where opinions of art and that [censored] come into play, then why would it be such a bad thing.

As I said, I understand the fault in Steam being a huge DRM....I never looked at it like that before.

That also leads me to believe that the only reason someone wouldn't like it (considerring millions of ppl do) is b/c they can't afford an online connection which isn't the fault of Steam.

Again, I understand, but that isn't Steams fault.

I was thinking more about the games companies chasing after people selling used games when the EULA states that they're actually non-transferrable licences and that sort of stuff.

My comment about EULAs did depend on where you were; I think it's the case that here in the EU, they can never override the rule of law and in some cases it may void other parts of an agreement or contract if enough of it is judged to be manifestly unreasonable.


That's the kind of thing I was getting at: if one does need to go online to activate a physical copy of a game, that's really something that was done in the publisher's interest anyway, I think. And sorry for being rather tetchy, I tend to get like that after a bad night's sleep. And the rest of the time.

Oh, I see, my mistake.

Of course, http://www.pioneer.eu/eur/content/company/company/agreement.html.

They try it on all the time. One of the most frequent examples I see is returns policies that are in flagrant opposition to the Distance Selling Act and as such have absolutely no legal standing; but they convince enough people that they have fewer rights than they really do, in which case they've accomplished their purpose as far as the offending company is concerned.

No, the purchase of a used game is not a "lost sale". The developers don't get paid when a person buys from a store, they get paid when the store buys from the developers (usually in bulk). Once it's in the store, it doesn't affect the developers if it's sold or not, since they already have their money. Whether a game is re-sold or not won't affect them.

For instance, I still have a working NES and multiple games for it. If I sold them, it wouldn't affect Nintendo at all since they stopped making money off the NES system, games, and accessories over 20 years ago.

Actually, you just did it again. Assuming that the millions of people who use it daily are enjoying it. My point is simply that not everyone who uses Steam, actually likes it. And I've never said Steam as an option was a bad thing - I think it's awesome for those who prefer digital copies of things and a place to keep all their stuff together. My problem is that it's being forced on games that have absolutely no online component, like Skyrim, and is making a single-player, offline game unplayable to those without internet. That's just silly. I'm still not sure why they released that game in a box version anyways when it still required Steam.

Which is why I said I didn't own the actual game content, but that I should own the copy of that content free to use but not in a way that is profitable to me. I can't steal the actual game and claim it as my own, but my copy is my own. (Least, this is how I think it should be.) It's just like any other computer program - I own that physical copy of the product but can NOT sell it as my own creation. Making copies of it would be ILLEGAL and considered breaking the law. In that sense, they have every right to take away my ability to have that product. And your thing about donald duck and mickey mouse doesn't stand... claiming ownership of them is illegal under copyright laws. But if I have a t'shirt with them on it, that shirt is MINE. Disney doesn't have any rights to take it away from me. Am I doing something wrong if I were to turn around and resell that shirt in a garage sale? When exactly do consumer rights come into play? Are you telling me EVERYTHING I think I own isn't really mine if it has any type of copyrighted logo/content?

The question is, why they would want to implement a DRM in the first place if it's not, theoretically, going to change anything?

Wow....so if 4 million ppl use Steam in one day....you're saying it's an unfair statement to say "millions of ppl use Steam on a daily basis and love it"?

So you're saying you have to subtract enough of the 4 million so that the number of ppl who are using Steam and enjoy it is 999,999 or less?

You're really giving your side of the arguement a lot of credit aren't you?

Millions of ppl enjoying Steam on a day where 4 million ppl play on it means it could be anywhere from 1 million to all 4 million. I didn't say all of them......but I think I'm confident in saying more than 25% of those ppl enjoy it.

Because they're not willing to take it out and see for themselves, I'm guessing... they probably think it's too risky. I think it's more risky to add more DRM than take it away, as you can see from Ubisoft's PC sales and how many PC gamers don't trust them anymore.

Sometimes, yes. There are lots of things that are lost sales. Someone makes a better game that competes with yours, someone writes a bad review, etc. Just because something equates to a lost sale doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with it. The used game market is a lost sale because you didn't make a game that had enough content or quality to motivate someone to keep it for a long period of time. I'd never sell my XBOX copy of Morrowind, but I gladly sold MW2 for $15.

Are libraries lost book sales?

I'm not really taking a side on this, but aren't used games pretty much the same thing as used movies, used CDs, and used books?

Yes.

Not sure why my simple statement of "Not EVERYONE who uses Steam, likes it" causes you to get so upset. Adding numbers and percentages doesn't change what I said. *Shrug*

I hear a lot about "lost sales" but for some reason none of the companies involved ever bring up the issue of games that are out of print. Would they claim that the second hand sale of a game that isn't even sold any more should be considered a "lost sale"?

I can see it both ways. It would svck if the next generation of consoles makes it impossible to play used games, but if that's the way they choose to go I won't object. I can't buy used baseball tickets to see a game after someone else already has, you know, so why should people do it with games? Just because you get to hold onto something physical? Some day all gaming will be done via digital download if not cloud based so we ought to get used to it now.

You keep saying I said EVERYO?NE likes it. Where the [censored] are you getting that.

I had to break out percentages and numbers to try and make you understand a very simple concept.

Millions of ppl enjoy it daily. THAT DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE.

/shrug
/sadface
/stupid.jpg
/facepalm
/innocentface
LOLLMAOSTFUBBQAWESOME

It's more objective to say that millions of people use it everyday.

Use.

You guys are right.

Out of those millions of ppl who use Steam on a daily basis, theres probably like.....5 that enjoy it.

What was I thinking.

*sigh* You're dragging your thread off course but if you won't let it go, you implied with this post that all the millions of people who use it daily are happy with it. And you implied this as a way to discredit someone who said something against Steam.. I was merely pointing out that millions upon millions could use Steam every single second of everyday but not all of them were happy. Now being you can't respond without being rude, I won't comment further on this point.