THQ Joins the Used Game Fight

[Eldarion]

Is this even legal?

I'm pretty sure it isn't illegal unfortunately. Which sucks.

 

[faspxina]

You know what would be funny? The ones who don't join in this silly crusade actually making more profit in the end.

 

[joystickjunki3]

then you'd be in the same situation as losing serial keys for your games? true it'd suck for having to do it for an entire account worth of games but that's a kind of big what if isn't it? what if microsoft went out of business? (yes i know that one is just to ridiculous)

They are one-time serial keys. You can only use them ONCE. So if you got banned from whatever account you had the key tied to, then you must pay a fee once you get a new account. It's not that much of a stretch considering that it's not that difficult to get booted from LIVE or PSN.

Never thought of this point. OK, I concede, this was poorly implemented. I figured it would be a user registration like Mass Effect 2's Cerberus Network, where you have an EA account that you link to your game. If it links to a live account, then there is an inherent flaw.

To be fair, I'm not saying that these codes actually work like that, but that's how I understand it. I would only know it for a fact had I used the codes before, which I have not. I really do want the companies to get the money that they rightfully deserve, but there has to be better methods than punishing actual consumers who pay for things. If the codes are tied to a person rather than the actual account, then I would have less of a problem w/ this method. If you find out I'm wrong, by all means, please message me and I'll relinquish at least part of my points of protest.

 

[Cryo84R]

Here is a shocker.

You have the right to free speech.
You have the right to a speedy trial by your peers.
You have the right to vote.
You don't have a right to play online.

Please don't cheapen the word 'right' with your entitlement nonsense.

 

[joystickjunki3]

You know what would be funny? The ones who don't join in this silly crusade actually making more profit in the end.

Hell yeah it would be. Which is exactly why I'm supporting everyone who didn't jump on this wagon.

 

[RicoADF]

What is it with the games industry? Waah, piracy! waaahhh! used games sales!

They're even whinier than the players.

Perhaps they'd sell more if they sold games for a reasonable price? Or made good games?

That pretty much says it all. Makes a good game and people would be willing to pay. I haven't gotten many games recently at top price (usually wait till they drop to $50 AUD from $100-110) because their not worth it, and get old quick. Funny because the games that keep me going are C&C 1/RA1/Tiberian Sun (none of which I paid more then $20 for when I first got them) and the OFP/ArmA/ArmAII games, which I paid full price on and have definently played far more then $90 worth of hrs!

You know what would be funny? The ones who don't join in this silly crusade actually making more profit in the end.

Hell yeah it would be. Which is exactly why I'm supporting everyone who didn't jump on this wagon.

Same here!

 

[shadow skill]

Actually a game is not a sale of a license, not according to US law anyway. No software is if it is sold with the the expectation that the buyer has perpetual ownership of the copies that they purchase. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc. for an example. The EULA is simply put invalid when it tries to tell you that you have only been granted a license to use the game. You are clearly not renting the item as there is no recurring fee. So how can one logically accept the idea that you have only been granted a license to use the item when there is no time in which the manufacturer will come to repossess your or my games? You are in point of fact and law buying a product. You know you should make sure you actually know what you are talking about before you try and call someone else a smart-ass.

Allow me to supply you with an excerpt of Sony's User Agreement and Software License (as in, a company that deals in game software and is actually applicable).

"THIS USER AGREEMENT AND SOFTWARE LICENSE (THE "AGREEMENT") IS A LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT LLC"

Further:

"Downloaded versions of this Game software, any other Game-related content downloaded through the PSN, and any data associated with your PSN account are non-transferable."

And the best part (most relevant emboldened for clarity):

"We may terminate this Agreement (including your software license) immediately and without notice if: (i) you breach or violate any provision of this Agreement; (ii) you or anyone you permit to use the Game infringe any intellectual property rights; (iii) if we are unable to verify or authenticate any information you provide to us; and/or (iv) upon game play, chat or any player activity whatsoever which we, in our sole discretion, determine is inappropriate and/or in violation of the spirit of the Game. If we terminate this Agreement under any such circumstances, you must destroy all copies of the Game and all Custom Content (and all parts thereof), you will lose access to the Game and you will not be entitled to any refund for the purchase price of the Game or any expansions, add-ons, products or services related to the Game that you may have purchased"

To make it clear: you DO NOT have indefinite ownership of anything you purchase - it can be recinded at any time should the licenser deem it necessary.

It's very nice to bring in outside examples, but find me an example of one in the gaming industry (and one actual pertaining to the subject i.e: Autodesk were attempting to bar the sale of unopened versions so bears very little weight here) and we'll have a sensible discussion.

Oh so Video games are not software now? Are you serious? Videogames don't use shrink-wrap contracts? (EULAs.) That is what Vernor V Audodesk is about. Oh and by the way in Vernor the court actually states that merely stating things does not make it law/binding. In fact With respect to Vernor they found that Autodesk did not have the right to demand that CTA (The company Vernor bought his copies of Autodesk from.) destroy the copies that they already had in return for upgrades. Sony's EULA does not necessarily give them the right to demand that you or anyone else destroy what you have already downloaded, if it resembles a sale. That section of the EULA you applies if they terminate the agreement with you. What it does not say is that they can demand that you destroy what you have downloaded if they terminate the PSN service itself. It does not mean that Sony has not transfered ownership of the games and other content you downloaded to you.

 

[ravensshade]

then you'd be in the same situation as losing serial keys for your games? true it'd suck for having to do it for an entire account worth of games but that's a kind of big what if isn't it? what if microsoft went out of business? (yes i know that one is just to ridiculous)

They are one-time serial keys. You can only use them ONCE. So if you got banned from whatever account you had the key tied to, then you must pay a fee once you get a new account. It's not that much of a stretch considering that it's not that difficult to get booted from LIVE or PSN.

IMO if you get banned from LIVE or PSN youve brought it on yourself it might serve as an incentive to not be an asshole/try to hack/do whatever it is people get banned for

 

[Don't Poke My Bobcat]

Oh so Video games are not software now? Are you serious?

Read what I write before you attempt a throat jump :

(as in, a company that deals in game software and is actually applicable).

Videogames don't use shrink-wrap contracts? (EULAs.) That is what Vernor V Audodesk is about.

No, V vs A was about barring the sale of unopened product. Look at the cases they used in helping the decision also for further information on how springy the subject is.

Oh and by the way in Vernor the court actually states that merely stating things does not make it law/binding.

If the agreement is made in a manner that the consumer was not aware.

Every online account you have these days has an "I agree" disclaimer - whether you read this is up to you but this loophole for the consumer has now been removed.

In fact With respect to Vernor they found that Autodesk did not have the right to demand that CTA (The company Vernor bought his copies of Autodesk from.) destroy the copies that they already had in return for upgrades.

As above.

Sony's EULA does not necessarily give them the right to demand that you or anyone else destroy what you have already downloaded, if it resembles a sale.

Yes it does. It says it in front of your face. I'm getting really bored of you for this reason; you ignore everything that proves your arguments invalid and reveal another wild tangent hoping it will override everything else.

That section of the EULA you applies if they terminate the agreement with you. What it does not say is that they can demand that you destroy what you have downloaded if they terminate the PSN service itself.

Yes it does. Sigh. Read the actual agreement before you make baseless statements. It isn't in my excerpt because it wasn't the most relevant at the time. The full agreement is easily found.

It does not mean that Sony has not transfered ownership of the games and other content you downloaded to you.

No... it doesn't...

Look I know its difficult to just leave the hole alone when you've already managed to dig such a deep one, but you are wrong.

I don't often categorically state someone is wrong, but I'm afraid you are. As you are wrong, and fail to provide reasonable discussion, and fail to read what I have to say properly - I bid you good day.

Whatever response you have to this you can class as your victory over me if you like - and you can gain the support of your fellow minions, carelessly spraying their greed brush everywhere (ironic that, isn't it? Posters saying the companies are greedy for $5, but complain about paying it themselves, expecting things on a platter, continued online support for free, etc).

However: On topic: THQ is perfectly within its rights to break up the games it creates/has a hand in and distribute it however it pleases. You may not like it, but chances are, you don't matter as you're not buying their games new anyway.

 

[shadow skill]

Oh so Video games are not software now? Are you serious?

Read what I write before you attempt a throat jump :

(as in, a company that deals in game software and is actually applicable).

Videogames don't use shrink-wrap contracts? (EULAs.) That is what Vernor V Audodesk is about.

No, V vs A was about barring the sale of unopened product. Look at the cases they used in helping the decision also for further information on how springy the subject is.

Oh and by the way in Vernor the court actually states that merely stating things does not make it law/binding.

If the agreement is made in a manner that the consumer was not aware.

Every online account you have these days has an "I agree" disclaimer - whether you read this is up to you but this loophole for the consumer has now been removed.

In fact With respect to Vernor they found that Autodesk did not have the right to demand that CTA (The company Vernor bought his copies of Autodesk from.) destroy the copies that they already had in return for upgrades.

As above.

Sony's EULA does not necessarily give them the right to demand that you or anyone else destroy what you have already downloaded, if it resembles a sale.

Yes it does. It says it in front of your face. I'm getting really bored of you for this reason; you ignore everything that proves your arguments invalid and reveal another wild tangent hoping it will override everything else.

That section of the EULA you applies if they terminate the agreement with you. What it does not say is that they can demand that you destroy what you have downloaded if they terminate the PSN service itself.

Yes it does. Sigh. Read the actual agreement before you make baseless statements. It isn't in my excerpt because it wasn't the most relevant at the time. The full agreement is easily found.

It does not mean that Sony has not transfered ownership of the games and other content you downloaded to you.

No... it doesn't...

Look I know its difficult to just leave the hole alone when you've already managed to dig such a deep one, but you are wrong.

I don't often categorically state someone is wrong, but I'm afraid you are. As you are wrong, and fail to provide reasonable discussion, and fail to read what I have to say properly - I bid you good day.

Whatever response you have to this you can class as your victory over me if you like - and you can gain the support of your fellow minions, carelessly spraying their greed brush everywhere (ironic that, isn't it? Posters saying the companies are greedy for $5, but complain about paying it themselves, expecting things on a platter, continued online support for free, etc).

However: On topic: THQ is perfectly within its rights to break up the games it creates/has a hand in and distribute it however it pleases. You may not like it, but chances are, you don't matter as you're not buying their games new anyway.

Aww boohoo. You are the one who needs to read what others write and face the fact that shrink-wrap contracts are not necessarily legally binding or contracts that do not transfer ownership. You can't claim that game software operates under rules substantially different from the rest of the software world when it comes to contracts when someone points out a ruling that has to do with software that utilizes a shrink-wrap contract.

That section of the EULA you quoted* applies if they terminate the agreement with you. What it does not say is that they can demand that you destroy what you have downloaded if they terminate the PSN service itself.

Yes it does. Sigh. Read the actual agreement before you make baseless statements. It isn't in my excerpt because it wasn't the most relevant at the time. The full agreement is easily found.

*The sentence of mine you quoted should have included the word "quoted" I managed to miss that word. My apologies.

Either the section that you quoted does or does not say that they can demand that you destroy content if the service is terminated. You admit that the excerpt you quoted does not say this. How exactly is my statement baseless?

Oh and by the way: http://legaldoc.dl.playstation.net/ps3-eula/psn/u/u_tosua_en.html

Doesn't say at any time that if they (Sony) make the decision to discontinue the service that you must delete any of the content you purchased. What it does say is that if you violate the terms of service you have to do that. If Sony's game division goes under you are in no way required as of April 2010 to delete content you have purchased. If you actually read the section you bolded you would understand that any such provision is within the context of you violating the terms of service.

Furthermore reading the PSN TOS dated April 21 2010 section 13 in the version for the Americas says the following with respect to termination and/or cancellation:

13. TERMINATION / CANCELLATION

If SCEA determines in its sole discretion that you or your associated Sub Accounts have violated any term of this Agreement, the Usage Terms, or any other terms and conditions connected with Sony Online Services or have otherwise injured or damaged the Sony Online Services community, SCEA may take all actions to protect its interests, including termination or suspension of your Sony Online Services account (both the Master Account and any associated Sub Accounts), automatic removal or blockage of content, implementation of upgrades or devices intended to discontinue unauthorized use, or reliance on any other remedial efforts as necessary to remedy the violation. If the violation is in connection with content that you or your Sub Accounts have accessed, you must immediately cease use of such content and delete all copies from all of your devices. Upon termination of your account for any reason, you will not receive a refund for items, value accumulated on in-game items or any unused balance in your wallet except as required by law or as expressly provided in this Agreement. Any game ranking or scores, or information in connection with Sony Online Services will not be retained or accessible by you or your associated Sub Accounts. In some situations, we may suspend or terminate your Master Account, but permit you to retain your associated Sub Accounts. If you do not terminate your Sub Accounts, you will be liable for all their acts. You may not alter any of the parental control settings placed on your Sub Accounts prior to the termination or suspension of your Master Account. Your Sub Accounts will be permitted to use the remaining funds in your wallet provided that the Sub Account has not exceeded the limit you placed on the Sub Account. Additionally, you will not receive further correspondence from SCEA about your Sub Accounts. SCEA reserves the right to bring legal action and to participate in any government or private legal action or investigation relating to your conduct, which may require the disclosure of your information. Unless as otherwise stated in this Agreement, SCEA, at its sole discretion, may indefinitely suspend, or discontinue any and all online access to content at any time, including for maintenance service or upgrades, without prior notice or liability.

Emphasis mine. Notice how the provision for deletion only exists if the violation of the TOS has to do with some specific content? If they terminate your account for reasons that have nothing to do with any specific content you are not required by the agreement to delete any content.


Please stop spreading misinformation and projecting things onto other people.

Ps. The word delete only appears once in the entire document (Americas version.), and that is in the section on termination and cancellation. Not even the EU TOS Dated April 20, 2010 says anything about you or I being required to delete any content even if you or I violate the terms of service.

Pss. The controlling factor in Vernor was whether or not the license did indeed transfer ownership to CTA. (The people Vernor got his copies of AutoCAD from.) The court ruled that the license did in fact transfer ownership to CTA because the license made no provision for getting back the software after a length of time. Because of this fact Vernor was free and clear to do what he wanted. It did not matter that there was no evidence that he had ever installed the software himself. Vernor was not bound by any terms that may have bound CTA, and CTA was not bound by the license included with these particular copies of AutoCAD. (They later did an agreement to destroy the old stuff they had in exchange for discounts on upgrades. But that is separate from the license on the discs.)

In United States V. Wise the court found that if the transaction gave rise to a right of perpetual ownership the transaction was a sale, if the recipient was required to give back the copy then it was not a sale. In fact what is called the "Redgrave contract" in Wise, contains personal use restrictions among other things and it still transfers ownership of the copy of the film to Ms. Redgrave. The restrictions in the contract in that case and Vernor do not determine whether ownership was transfered. The nature of the transaction and more specifically whether the contract has some sort mechanism for getting the copy back (The thing that every lease has.) is the determining factor.

 

[joystickjunki3]

then you'd be in the same situation as losing serial keys for your games? true it'd suck for having to do it for an entire account worth of games but that's a kind of big what if isn't it? what if microsoft went out of business? (yes i know that one is just to ridiculous)

They are one-time serial keys. You can only use them ONCE. So if you got banned from whatever account you had the key tied to, then you must pay a fee once you get a new account. It's not that much of a stretch considering that it's not that difficult to get booted from LIVE or PSN.

IMO if you get banned from LIVE or PSN youve brought it on yourself it might serve as an incentive to not be an asshole/try to hack/do whatever it is people get banned for

That's an entirely different argument. The point is that it can happen, and is not out of the question. Sometimes the moderators are assholes on XBL and boot players for little to no reason.

 

[ravensshade]

IMO if you get banned from LIVE or PSN youve brought it on yourself it might serve as an incentive to not be an asshole/try to hack/do whatever it is people get banned for

That's an entirely different argument. The point is that it can happen, and is not out of the question. Sometimes the moderators are assholes on XBL and boot players for little to no reason.[/quote]
that link is devoid from the argument because it's an argument in itself if it was entirely true so with that being said.
also might i note that mmo's are famed for having one time serial keys and do people complain about those? not really

 

[shadow skill]

Wait; what's the last good game THQ ever made?

Oh, I'm sorry, there isn't one.

Well to be fair the last UFC game was pretty good. At least I thought it was.

 

[hypothetical fact]

Yo Ho Fiddle dee dee. May as well pirate, they're killing the industry.

 

[KingTiger]

Yo Ho Fiddle dee dee. May as well pirate, they're killing the industry.

Aye aye Captain, Yar Harr and a bottle O Rum

I cant believe they would do those to legit customers...

Revenge will be sweet!! >:C

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Here's how most companies can solve this, "used games" issue. Stop making annuals games with very little improvements. That's what patches are for.