Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Germany makes Valve change HL2 box - Page 2

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 8:54:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On that special day, Gandalf Parker,
(gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites) said...

> If he bought a CD with a game on it, then he owns a CD but not
> the game.

Does that mean, if I buy a book, I own the paper, but not the letters on
it? Your description is exactly like this.


Gabriele Neukam

Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam@t-online.de


--
Ah, Information. A property, too valuable these days, to give it away,
just so, at no cost.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 8:54:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Gabriele Neukam wrote:

> On that special day, Gandalf Parker,
> (gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites) said...
>
>
>>If he bought a CD with a game on it, then he owns a CD but not
>>the game.
>
>
> Does that mean, if I buy a book, I own the paper, but not the letters on
> it? Your description is exactly like this.

That's the way it works though...you own the medium, but not the data on
it...
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 9:01:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Chris Pound wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 07:31:29 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Valve aren't the publisher you frigging clueless moron. Nice to see
>>you are showing yourself as a real troll and changing your address.
>>*plonk*
>
>
> Valve are the developers of Steam you moron.

Looks we have a new "angry voice of gaming".
Related resources
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 12:48:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:10:58 GMT, Jeff Holinski
<nospam_holinski@shaw.ca> wrote:


>When people refer to IQ's they're refering to the score not what time
>you took it.

Yea, well, IQ tests aren't about proper use of puncuation either.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 1:51:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Werner Spahl" <spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.58.0502111030030.1411@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, OldDog wrote:
>
> > The publisher of HL2 is VU Games. They're the ones that are being less
> > than honest about what's on the HL2 box.
>
> Hello? AFAIK VU Games was fighting in court to prevent the whole Steam
> issue in the first place. I bet if Valve would let them, there would be
> retail versions without Steam, which of course would lower Steam sales
> which Valve is not interested in...
>

I just realized that when I started this thread that I wrote Valve in the
subject line. I don't have the link any more, but I don't see how going
after Valve will do anything about how the Publisher markets the game. Oh
well, it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 2:26:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly Gabriele Neukam <Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam@t-online.de> Spake
Unto All:

>> If he bought a CD with a game on it, then he owns a CD but not
>> the game.
>
>Does that mean, if I buy a book, I own the paper, but not the letters on
>it? Your description is exactly like this.

That is exactly what it means, yes.
You own the medium, so you can burn or sell the book, but you don't
own the content, so you cant xerox it and sell copies.



--
The US employs divide-and-conquer against EU
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-02/10/content_25...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3981499.stm
http://www.fsfinalword.com/archive/Divide_and_conquer.h...

The US is no longer our ally: Federalize NOW!
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 2:26:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> Spake Unto All:

>>>Valve aren't the publisher you frigging clueless moron. Nice to see
>>>you are showing yourself as a real troll and changing your address.
>>>*plonk*
>>
>>
>> Valve are the developers of Steam you moron.
>
>Looks we have a new "angry voice of gaming".

Hell hath no fury like a pirate banned.



--
The US employs divide-and-conquer against EU
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-02/10/content_25...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3981499.stm
http://www.fsfinalword.com/archive/Divide_and_conquer.h...

The US is no longer our ally: Federalize NOW!
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 2:26:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:26:46 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:


>Hell hath no fury like a pirate banned.

I don't have HL2 on my PC, not even a pirated version. I've got better
games to play.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 5:06:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Gabriele Neukam <Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam@t-online.de> wrote in
news:cuio2e$s8c$04$2@news.t-online.com:

> On that special day, Gandalf Parker,
> (gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites) said...
>
>> If he bought a CD with a game on it, then he owns a CD but not
>> the game.
>
> Does that mean, if I buy a book, I own the paper, but not the letters
> on it? Your description is exactly like this.

Exactly. What you can and cannot do are based on owning the book, and
not what is written in it. You can sell a book, or burn it, or use it
for a completely different purpose such as propping up the leg of a
table. You cannot sell what was written in the book, you have to sell
your copy of it. You cannot use part of what is written in the book as
part of another project except in very specifically allowed cases. In
other words the rights you have are defined very differently between the
book (owning the media) and the content (what is in the book). The same
goes for music tapes. The same goes for movie VCRs. The same goes for
buying a magazine, or a newspaper, or a any media.

But for SOME reason, I keep seeing people in these newsgroups saying
stupid things about their rights to do things with a program based on
buying it on a CD. Some get it right but many others want to shift it
from owning the CD to owning the program. If they thought about the fact
that the laws are based on the same rights and privileges as any other
media (until new laws are written) they would do much better in these
conversations.

Gandalf Parker
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 5:47:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:48:44 -0800, Chris Pound
<Chris@invalid.noemail> wrote:


>Yea, well, IQ tests aren't about proper use of puncuation either.

Or spelling.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 9:14:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:36:05 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com>
wrote:

>
>"sayNO2steam" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:rd1m01d0fc2nke6q21og1probg8dgfdvok@4ax.com...
>> Germany makes Valve change HL2 box
>>
>> this is good news for gamers and the protection of consumer rights
>> Germany was the first to see what us gamers have been warning since
>> the beginning, that HL2 is being sold in a retail box with no PROPER
>> labeling or info about the $team technology that its selling
>>
>
>This is bad news for the publisher of Half Life 2. Although "sayNO2steam",
>who writes an awlful lot like difool, failed to mention that in this case
>the publisher is VU Games. VU Games is not Valve which is the developer of
>HL2. VU Games is the same old standard publisher that we've been dealing
>with for the last several years. This publisher has robbed the developer
>of HL2 (Valve) of royalties, and is now being less than honest with single
>player customers about setting up and playing HL2 single player component.
>

You need not worry. I suspect that VU will get out of any retail
distribution contract with Valve as fast as they can. You have
conveniently forgotten that Valve/VU litigation is still pending on
Valve's use of Steam as an alternate distribution without VU
approval.

In fact, I shall be very interested in seeing exactly who will
retail-distribute future Valve games. If Valve sticks with
on-line sales only, then they will surely die and their IP/key
technical personnel be cheaply bought out (and the company
disbanded) by a big retail distributor such as EA.

John Lewis

>In fact, I'm still waiting for a picture posted on the web by difool that
>compares the VU Games CEO to Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Josef Mengele...
>
>
>> the insignificant reference you can find in the bottom of HL2 back
>> cover to "internet required" is totally insuficient to describe what
>> $team is and does and requires, so this move Germany made is very
>> welcome
>>
>> but also Germany makes reference to shifts in the traditional way
>> of selling games that also have to be addressed, like not being able
>> to sell it in the 2nd hand market or the fee you must pay valve to
>> change cd-key ownership
>> Germany looked at much more than the simple "internet required" but
>> to the brother picture of that $team is trying to do
>>
>> we now hope every country in the world will follow Germany path and
>> much more investigation will be made to valve and $team, cause we
>> won a battle but not the war! we must go on and continue fighting
>> cause it ain't over yet
>>
>
>The publisher of HL2 is VU Games. They're the ones that are being less
>than honest about what's on the HL2 box.
>
>As to the war, it's just a matter of time. One day soon, CD/DVDs will be
>setting next to the abacas, slide rule, 8 inch floppy, and the 8-track in a
>museum.
>
><snip>
>> ps: a big thanks to olddog that first post this great breaking news
>>
>
>No need to thank me. Cause my next pc game is going to be box-free,
>gas-free, save the envirnoment, .... which means I'm looking forward to the
>next Steam released game. ;) 
>
>ps Are you difool? The same person that's called me: stupid, Steam
>lover, ignorant, dumb, dumber, dumbest, selfish, uncaring, ....? Cause
>there's no need to thank me for pointing out ground breaking news about
>flaws in the PUBLISHERs game box. ;) 
>
>> --
>> test
>
>test complete.
>
>
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 11:09:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) Spake Unto All:

>You need not worry. I suspect that VU will get out of any retail
>distribution contract with Valve as fast as they can.

After HL2 sold for $25M?
Yeah, I bet they'll be just itching to drop that contract.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:02:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <Xns95FB3DB326938gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>,
Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>
>Exactly. What you can and cannot do are based on owning the book, and
>not what is written in it. You can sell a book, or burn it, or use it
>for a completely different purpose such as propping up the leg of a
>table. You cannot sell what was written in the book, you have to sell
>your copy of it.
> (...)

Is this concept compatible with a $10 fee for transferring the right
to use the copy to somebody else?

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:13:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Chris Pound wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:26:46 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
> <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hell hath no fury like a pirate banned.
>
>
> I don't have HL2 on my PC, not even a pirated version. I've got better
> games to play.

And yet you seem very opinionated on Valve and Vivendi. Interesting.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:13:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:13:44 +0100, Walter Mitty
<mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


>And yet you seem very opinionated on Valve and Vivendi. Interesting.

Anti-steam is why. As any intelligent gamer should be.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 12:34:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Chris Pound wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:13:44 +0100, Walter Mitty
> <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>>And yet you seem very opinionated on Valve and Vivendi. Interesting.
>
>
> Anti-steam is why. As any intelligent gamer should be.

What is with you "anti-steam" guys? You keep referring to yourselves as
"intelligent". The constant need to inform us of your colossal
processing powers is surely indicative of the absurdity of your claim.

Interestingly enough, you share a trait with our Mr Lewis : the ability
to constantly whinge and whine without actually having tried the SW
yourself.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 12:57:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <cum8u9$v1q$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no>, bcd@pvv.ntnu.no says...
> In article <Xns95FB3DB326938gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>,
> Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
> >
> >Exactly. What you can and cannot do are based on owning the book, and
> >not what is written in it. You can sell a book, or burn it, or use it
> >for a completely different purpose such as propping up the leg of a
> >table. You cannot sell what was written in the book, you have to sell
> >your copy of it.
> > (...)
>
> Is this concept compatible with a $10 fee for transferring the right
> to use the copy to somebody else?

Probably not. I should imagine such a fee is an administration fee for
terminating an old Steam account and issuing a new one.

- Gerry Quinn
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 12:59:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Chris Pound" <Chris@invalid.noemail> wrote in message
news:hr1t01di9f33e7sdqeqkp71drcc8k13lce@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:48:44 -0800, Chris Pound
> <Chris@invalid.noemail> wrote:
>
>
>>Yea, well, IQ tests aren't about proper use of puncuation either.
>
> Or spelling.

Replying to your own posts? An obvious sign of being a knuckle-dragging
moronic braindead retard.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:00:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:59:59 +1100, "Fred At Home"
<fredathome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote:


>Replying to your own posts? An obvious sign of being a knuckle-dragging
>moronic braindead retard.
>

Or realizing I'm the only superbeing here worth responding to.
February 13, 2005 5:24:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Fred At Home" wrote

> "Chris Pound" wrote

>>>Yea, well, IQ tests aren't about proper use of puncuation either.

>> Or spelling.

> Replying to your own posts? An obvious sign of being a knuckle-dragging
> moronic braindead retard.

'Fred At Home'. Which home are you in?
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 5:38:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in
news:MPG.1c7934fc309107c5989e25@news.indigo.ie:

> In article <cum8u9$v1q$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no>, bcd@pvv.ntnu.no says...
>> In article <Xns95FB3DB326938gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>,
>> Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>> >
>> >Exactly. What you can and cannot do are based on owning the book, and
>> >not what is written in it. You can sell a book, or burn it, or use it
>> >for a completely different purpose such as propping up the leg of a
>> >table. You cannot sell what was written in the book, you have to sell
>> >your copy of it.
>> > (...)
>>
>> Is this concept compatible with a $10 fee for transferring the right
>> to use the copy to somebody else?
>
> Probably not. I should imagine such a fee is an administration fee for
> terminating an old Steam account and issuing a new one.

Yes I suspect its a "service fee". Like many service fees people might
get angry and feel its unnecessary, but they are considered legal. In
this case it would probably come out as "do whatever you want with the
game you bought. But why should we go to the trouble to switch things in
our database just because you sold your copy to someone. They need to pay
us a fee to switch it." There are plenty of examples of that type of
thing in real life.

Before anyone flames off on my, I am NOT saying I like the idea. This
appears to be another case of wanting to make "virtual" into a new thing
with new rules. Look to the old non-virtual rules. If its not that way,
then dont be surprised if someone suddenly "thinks" of it. That goes for
all the good stuff, and all the bad stuff.

Gandalf Parker
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 1:23:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <Xns95FC43385F0C5gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>,
Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>
>Before anyone flames off on my, I am NOT saying I like the idea. This
>appears to be another case of wanting to make "virtual" into a new thing
>with new rules. Look to the old non-virtual rules. If its not that way,
>then dont be surprised if someone suddenly "thinks" of it. That goes for
>all the good stuff, and all the bad stuff.

There is certainly no shortage of MMO games that follow the running
subscription idea for software. While it might be somewhat original to
adopt the same type of service for a single-player game, it is still
in line with licensing schemes that have been used by other software
packages for some time now.

What does seem somewhat underhanded, though, is to introduce this sort
of scheme on a product in which it is not expected and then not making
this clear on the box. I suspect this might be illegal in large parts
of Europe and that it will remain so until it becomes commonplace for
retail games to follow a subscription model. I am not sure what US
consumer laws have to say about this, but European laws tend to put
much importance into what the general consumer reasonably expects of
the product and whether or not the product delivers on this
expectation.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 2:03:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:09:38 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Thusly john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) Spake Unto All:
>
>>You need not worry. I suspect that VU will get out of any retail
>>distribution contract with Valve as fast as they can.
>
>After HL2 sold for $25M?
>Yeah, I bet they'll be just itching to drop that contract.
>

And exactly what is Valve going to follow-up with in continuing
revenue?

VU cares about 3-month earnings-cycles. The past is gone.
They will be far more interested in supporting their own in-house
developer ( Blizzard) which is in the process of generating a
revenue-stream fortune with the wildly-popular WoW, than
in fighting any further legal battles in retail revenue-sharing with a
wild-card like Valve who has officially declared and implemented
a download-distribution channel in unrestricted competition with
retail.

Time will tell.

John Lewis


the stream of
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 3:04:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) wrote in news:cuok0r$cs3$1
@orkan.itea.ntnu.no:

> What does seem somewhat underhanded, though, is to introduce this sort
> of scheme on a product in which it is not expected and then not making
> this clear on the box. I suspect this might be illegal in large parts
> of Europe and that it will remain so until it becomes commonplace for
> retail games to follow a subscription model. I am not sure what US
> consumer laws have to say about this, but European laws tend to put
> much importance into what the general consumer reasonably expects of
> the product and whether or not the product delivers on this
> expectation.

It might be new as a game. But Im not sure that its either underhanded, nor
that unepected, for a fee to be needed to update someones database. I dont
know if a case could be built saying that a customer resonably expected to
be able to transfer their account for free.

How would you picture it being put on the box?
Maybe something like "NOTE: a fee is required to process any resale of this
item"

Gandalf Parker
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 12:44:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <Xns95FCA3190F6F8gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>,
Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>
>It might be new as a game. But Im not sure that its either underhanded, nor
>that unepected, for a fee to be needed to update someones database. I dont
>know if a case could be built saying that a customer resonably expected to
>be able to transfer their account for free.

The thing is, I don't think it is obvious to the general gamer that an
online account should be needed to play a single player game.

>How would you picture it being put on the box?
>Maybe something like "NOTE: a fee is required to process any resale of this
>item"

A note along the lines of "complimentary online Steam subscription
required to install the game" might be enough of a hint. I don't think
it's necessary to get into excruciating detail on the box. The point
is to get across that this game has special strings attached.

If there was reason to believe that game resale is highly important to
the target audience, then your suggestion might be more appropriate,
however. I couldn't really tell as I never saw the need to resell my
games ...

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 2:01:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
news:Xns95FC43385F0C5gandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
> >> Is this concept compatible with a $10 fee for transferring the right
> >> to use the copy to somebody else?
> > Probably not. I should imagine such a fee is an administration fee for
> > terminating an old Steam account and issuing a new one.
> Yes I suspect its a "service fee". Like many service fees people might
> get angry and feel its unnecessary, but they are considered legal. In
> this case it would probably come out as "do whatever you want with the
> game you bought. But why should we go to the trouble to switch things in
> our database just because you sold your copy to someone. They need to pay
> us a fee to switch it." There are plenty of examples of that type of
> thing in real life.
>
> Before anyone flames off on my, I am NOT saying I like the idea. This
> appears to be another case of wanting to make "virtual" into a new thing
> with new rules. Look to the old non-virtual rules. If its not that way,
> then dont be surprised if someone suddenly "thinks" of it. That goes for
> all the good stuff, and all the bad stuff.

Valve cannot impose an unnecessarily mandatory, draconian scheme as Steam
and then say "give us $10 if you want to sell the game". So they need to
decide if they want to give people the option of opting out of Steam (or
rather opting in) or stop trying to charge money for something that isn't
needed to run the game.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 5:23:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) wrote in
news:cuprtd$2gi$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no:

> In article <Xns95FCA3190F6F8gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>,
> Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>>
>>It might be new as a game. But Im not sure that its either
>>underhanded, nor that unepected, for a fee to be needed to update
>>someones database. I dont know if a case could be built saying that a
>>customer resonably expected to be able to transfer their account for
>>free.
>
> The thing is, I don't think it is obvious to the general gamer that an
> online account should be needed to play a single player game.

Thats true. I would think that a great case could be created for them not
giving enough info into the minimum system requirements to play the game
if thats not included in the list.

>>How would you picture it being put on the box?
>>Maybe something like "NOTE: a fee is required to process any resale of
>>this item"
>
> A note along the lines of "complimentary online Steam subscription
> required to install the game" might be enough of a hint. I don't think
> it's necessary to get into excruciating detail on the box. The point
> is to get across that this game has special strings attached.

Good one. Yes thats much more along the lines of what would probably be
on the box.

> If there was reason to believe that game resale is highly important to
> the target audience, then your suggestion might be more appropriate,
> however. I couldn't really tell as I never saw the need to resell my
> games ...

I dont remember ever doing so myself either. And Ive gotten more and more
careful about buying any used games which have ANY online element to
them. Of course the publishers have never had a vested interest in
supporting resale of games. They have even tried in the past to come up
with way to refuse it. So I wouldnt be surprised if we see more of this
type of control happening in future games.

Gandalf Parker
-- no longer speaking for any game company
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 10:31:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> Spake Unto All:

>Valve cannot impose an unnecessarily mandatory, draconian scheme as Steam
>and then say "give us $10 if you want to sell the game".

1 ridiculous hyperbole and 1 factual inaccuracy in 1 sentence which
also features wrongful punctuation.

Kroagnon is still going strong.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 11:41:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in
news:1111ma7gt7qef18@news.supernews.com:

> Valve cannot impose an unnecessarily mandatory, draconian scheme as
> Steam and then say "give us $10 if you want to sell the game". So they
> need to decide if they want to give people the option of opting out of
> Steam (or rather opting in) or stop trying to charge money for
> something that isn't needed to run the game.

I doubt very much that they are saying "give us $10 if you want to sell the
game". I think that is someones interpretation of it. The companys version
would be important to know for deciding if its possible or not. Such as if
its "a transfer fee to the new owner updating the database" then there
would be a legal standing for it. After all, thats what you do when you
sell a car (and it makes alot less sense there than it does for a game)

Opt out? You mean some way to opt out of multiplay and only play it solo?
Opt out of patches, updates, and support for that copy? I guess that would
make sense if they wanted to program that in. Basically a "we drop all
support for games that are resold".

Gandalf Parker
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 10:24:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

<hbs@ks.informatik.uni-kiel.de> wrote in message
news:cug03k$g2d$1@obelix.informatik.uni-kiel.de...
> In <110mvi6blcg9gaf@news.supernews.com> "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com>
> writes:
>
>
>>The Steam fanatics will grab hold of the smallest detail in order to
>>derail
>>criticism of their beloved Steam. Valve can do absolutely no wrong, you
>>see.
>
>>Yes Vivendi is the publisher but VALVE is the one that made these
>>draconian
>>rules regarding selling Steam-infected games. Can't sell the game without
>>paying $10 to Valve? They deserve a lawsuit for that one alone.
>
> I'm pretty sure they don't need a lawsuit as sales for their steam
> next game will surely drop. I know lots of people who won't buy any
> steam game again (me included). Once bitten ,twice shy.

This is true, Valve lost many customers (me also included). Unfortunately
the money they made on the sales of HL2 will probably keep them going :( 

Ceo-
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 10:24:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Ceowulf wrote:
> This is true, Valve lost many customers (me also included). Unfortunately
> the money they made on the sales of HL2 will probably keep them going :( 

Well yay for people like me who want to see a HL3 and all the other
stuff in the future. :) 
February 15, 2005 1:53:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Fred At Home" wrote

> The should make people take a simple test before allowing them access to
> the WWW.

An excellent point well made.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:08:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
news:Xns95FD80A4EB4CCgandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
> > Valve cannot impose an unnecessarily mandatory, draconian scheme as
> > Steam and then say "give us $10 if you want to sell the game". So they
> > need to decide if they want to give people the option of opting out of
> > Steam (or rather opting in) or stop trying to charge money for
> > something that isn't needed to run the game.
>
> I doubt very much that they are saying "give us $10 if you want to sell
the
> game". I think that is someones interpretation of it. The companys version
> would be important to know for deciding if its possible or not. Such as if
> its "a transfer fee to the new owner updating the database" then there
> would be a legal standing for it. After all, thats what you do when you
> sell a car (and it makes alot less sense there than it does for a game)

No, you have to pay $10 to transfer a Steam account. No joke, direct from
Valve. If you don't you run the risk of having the account blocked because
selling the game is "against the EULA".

> Opt out? You mean some way to opt out of multiplay and only play it solo?
> Opt out of patches, updates, and support for that copy? I guess that would
> make sense if they wanted to program that in. Basically a "we drop all
> support for games that are resold".

Opt out of Steam so you can download patches manually like any other game.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:10:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"GFree" <nickt4001@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4211374d@yorrell.saard.net...
> Ceowulf wrote:
> > This is true, Valve lost many customers (me also included).
Unfortunately
> > the money they made on the sales of HL2 will probably keep them going :( 
> Well yay for people like me who want to see a HL3 and all the other
> stuff in the future. :) 

I feel for Valve right now the same as I felt for Ion Storm after Deus Exbox
Invisible War was released: wake me when they're dead. And it came true! :) 
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 2:53:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in
news:1114slrkq7jb218@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
> news:Xns95FD80A4EB4CCgandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
>> > Valve cannot impose an unnecessarily mandatory, draconian scheme as
>> > Steam and then say "give us $10 if you want to sell the game". So
>> > they need to decide if they want to give people the option of
>> > opting out of Steam (or rather opting in) or stop trying to charge
>> > money for something that isn't needed to run the game.
>>
>> I doubt very much that they are saying "give us $10 if you want to
>> sell the game". I think that is someones interpretation of it. The
>> companys version would be important to know for deciding if its
>> possible or not. Such as if its "a transfer fee to the new owner
>> updating the database" then there would be a legal standing for it.
>> After all, thats what you do when you sell a car (and it makes alot
>> less sense there than it does for a game)
>
> No, you have to pay $10 to transfer a Steam account. No joke, direct
> from Valve. If you don't you run the risk of having the account
> blocked because selling the game is "against the EULA".

Yes I know. Thats what I said. A fee to transfer the account. Thats not a
new thing. Its done with cars, household appliances, memberships in gyms,
all kinds of things. Saying that its a "charge to sell a game I bought"
would indeed make it something illegal. Saying its a fee to transfer the
support to a new owner isnt.

>> Opt out? You mean some way to opt out of multiplay and only play it
>> solo? Opt out of patches, updates, and support for that copy? I guess
>> that would make sense if they wanted to program that in. Basically a
>> "we drop all support for games that are resold".
>
> Opt out of Steam so you can download patches manually like any other
> game.

Opt out to play solo would make sense to me in the argument of "I bought
the game". But opt out of their distrib system to get the distribs
without that system? So you just want them to give it all the way you
want? Alot of games use a distrib system without using steam (like GalCiv
does). And alot of games dont use such a system for handling distribs.
Why bother getting mad at their choice?

Gandalf Parker
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 7:59:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Fred At Home" <fredathome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in
news:420d223e$0$11122$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

> The should make people take a simple test before allowing them access
> to the WWW.
In the years past it was exactly like that:)  You had to write your own web
browser first, before getting to the WWW (or news client before getting to
the usenet).

Alex.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 8:04:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in
news:1114slrkq7jb218@news.supernews.com:

> No, you have to pay $10 to transfer a Steam account. No joke, direct
> from Valve. If you don't you run the risk of having the account blocked
> because selling the game is "against the EULA".
I'm curious about what happens if the person A wants to sell "steamed" game
B, but keep another "steamed" game C...

Alex.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 8:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

alexti wrote:
> "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in
> news:1114slrkq7jb218@news.supernews.com:
>
>
>>No, you have to pay $10 to transfer a Steam account. No joke, direct
>>from Valve. If you don't you run the risk of having the account blocked
>>because selling the game is "against the EULA".
>
> I'm curious about what happens if the person A wants to sell "steamed" game
> B, but keep another "steamed" game C...

Simple answer: you can't (at least with the same Steam account).

The only way (currently) is to foresee this eventuality by making TWO
Steam accounts and registering the games separately. Don't know many
people who'd bother with that though.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 12:06:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

alexti wrote:

> "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in
> news:1114slrkq7jb218@news.supernews.com:
>
>
>>No, you have to pay $10 to transfer a Steam account. No joke, direct
>>from Valve. If you don't you run the risk of having the account blocked
>>because selling the game is "against the EULA".

Might be interesting if someone here in Germany sues Valve then because
EULAs (except when they are outside on the box) are not binding here
since they are a belately introduced part of the general contract.

Cheers

Torsten


--
Kill Holzmichl!
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 12:33:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
news:Xns95FEA152D7A0Egandalfparker@208.201.224.154...

> > No, you have to pay $10 to transfer a Steam account. No joke, direct
> > from Valve. If you don't you run the risk of having the account
> > blocked because selling the game is "against the EULA".
> Yes I know. Thats what I said. A fee to transfer the account. Thats not a
> new thing. Its done with cars, household appliances, memberships in gyms,
> all kinds of things. Saying that its a "charge to sell a game I bought"
> would indeed make it something illegal. Saying its a fee to transfer the
> support to a new owner isnt.

This is not an applicance, a membership, or a car; it's a damn $40-50 boxed
game. In any case I don't remember the last time I paid someone a "fee" to
sell an appliance.

Why would you pay Valve $10 just to transfer a Steam account (in order to
fully sell the game) given that the only reason Steam exists is to make
money this way *illegitamately*, using clauses from an unenforcable EULA.
For someone who played the single player game and wants to sell it to
somebody else that wants to play the single player game, there is no need
for Steam at all. So I ask you how this is legal and / or legit?

> >> Opt out? You mean some way to opt out of multiplay and only play it
> >> solo? Opt out of patches, updates, and support for that copy? I guess
> >> that would make sense if they wanted to program that in. Basically a
> >> "we drop all support for games that are resold".
> > Opt out of Steam so you can download patches manually like any other
> > game.
> Opt out to play solo would make sense to me in the argument of "I bought
> the game". But opt out of their distrib system to get the distribs
> without that system? So you just want them to give it all the way you
> want? Alot of games use a distrib system without using steam (like GalCiv
> does). And alot of games dont use such a system for handling distribs.
> Why bother getting mad at their choice?

Again, I do NOT CHOOSE to get this game through Steam. Why is it that one
needs to deal with Steam at all if he/she purchases the retail boxed game?
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 12:35:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"alexti" <QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns95FFD5C3BD4sfjshTTalextiFJFsdsi@205.237.233.50...

> > No, you have to pay $10 to transfer a Steam account. No joke, direct
> > from Valve. If you don't you run the risk of having the account blocked
> > because selling the game is "against the EULA".
> I'm curious about what happens if the person A wants to sell "steamed"
game
> B, but keep another "steamed" game C...

You can't at this time - it's all or nothing, you have to transfer all games
on the Steam account or none at all. That's why the Steam fanatics keep
telling people to create a new Steam account for "every" Valve game they
have.

I suspect this will all be sorted out by the courts or by various regulatory
agencies.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:15:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:18:16 GMT, GFree <nickt4001@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>alexti wrote:
>> "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in
>> news:1114slrkq7jb218@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>>No, you have to pay $10 to transfer a Steam account. No joke, direct
>>>from Valve. If you don't you run the risk of having the account blocked
>>>because selling the game is "against the EULA".
>>
>> I'm curious about what happens if the person A wants to sell "steamed" game
>> B, but keep another "steamed" game C...
>
>Simple answer: you can't (at least with the same Steam account).
>
>The only way (currently) is to foresee this eventuality by making TWO
>Steam accounts and registering the games separately. Don't know many
>people who'd bother with that though.

Plus the fact that most new Steam user will happily enter all the CD
keys for all of their Valve products during registration not knowing
that Valve is about to take control of all their games makes it even
less likely they will make multiple accounts.

This is what really gets me is that Valve can take control of old
games that you may have bought years before Steam and now can't be
sold or given away, thus ending second hand sales unless Valve gets a
cut... I mean transfer fee.

It's just not right IMO
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 2:50:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <Xns95FEA152D7A0Egandalfparker@208.201.224.154>,
Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>
>Yes I know. Thats what I said. A fee to transfer the account. Thats not a
>new thing. Its done with cars, household appliances, memberships in gyms,
>all kinds of things. Saying that its a "charge to sell a game I bought"
>would indeed make it something illegal. Saying its a fee to transfer the
>support to a new owner isnt.

I don't think that courts are, in general, very impressed with the use
of linguistic loopholes in subverting the spirit of the law. Assuming
that the right of first sale is still respected in the US, I would
think that it trumps such shenanigans without much debate.

I am curious, however, as to what you mean when you refer to cars and
household appliances. If I buy, say, a Ford, is there a fee I have to
pay to Ford to transfer ownership of the car (or the ability to use
it) to someone else? What kind of household appliances follows this
sort of scheme and how does it work?

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 3:09:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:00:11 GMT, "- - : R A T B o y : - -" <- - : R A
T B o y : - -@shovit_dude.com> wrote:

> DOD for years (5 years) had our ears to the ground
>and KNEW WHAT TO EXPECT.
Speaking of which when is DOD source going to be completed? I paid
for it months ago.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:15:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:50:29 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:

>In article <Xns95FEA152D7A0Egandalfparker@208.201.224.154>,
>Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>>
>>Yes I know. Thats what I said. A fee to transfer the account. Thats not a
>>new thing. Its done with cars, household appliances, memberships in gyms,
>>all kinds of things. Saying that its a "charge to sell a game I bought"
>>would indeed make it something illegal. Saying its a fee to transfer the
>>support to a new owner isnt.
>
>I don't think that courts are, in general, very impressed with the use
>of linguistic loopholes in subverting the spirit of the law. Assuming
>that the right of first sale is still respected in the US, I would
>think that it trumps such shenanigans without much debate.

I don't think you grasp the consept of you only owning the physical
medium (CD/DVD), and just licensing the data on it and the service
that comes with it.

If you buy a membership in a gym, you normally get a small membership
card - the physical card is yours, but the gym isn't. Thus you can
sell the card itself to somebody else, but the gym will in no way be
forced to let that other person in, and the gym can demand a fee to
transfer the membership.

You are in every way entiteled to sell your Half-Life 2 CDs - neither
Valve or anybody else can interfere with that. But their service
agreement is still tied to you - even if it becomes useless without
the CDs.

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:15:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Simon Nejmann" wrote:
> You are in every way entiteled to sell your Half-Life 2 CDs - neither
> Valve or anybody else can interfere with that. But their service
> agreement is still tied to you - even if it becomes useless without
> the CDs.

False. From US copyright law: "The doctrine of first sale allows the
purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell, rent, or give away) a particular, legally
acquired copy of protected work without permission once it has been
obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on
that particular copy once the copy is sold."

When I buy a microwave, I own the plastic, not the firmware that operates
the machinery. Sure, but what the hell does that have to do with my right
to resell the microwave I bought? I can only sell the plastic case; the
buyer does not have right to operate the machinery because Generical
Electric owns the firmware?
I need to pay GE to sell the microwave?
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:15:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

>> You are in every way entiteled to sell your Half-Life 2 CDs - neither
>> Valve or anybody else can interfere with that. But their service
>> agreement is still tied to you - even if it becomes useless without
>> the CDs.

>False. From US copyright law: "The doctrine of first sale allows the
>purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell, rent, or give away) a particular, legally
>acquired copy of protected work without permission once it has been
>obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on
>that particular copy once the copy is sold."

The way I'm reading the statement you are responding to, I do not see
your quote as countering it. Your entitled to the copy, but not the service.
I'd say that this, at least is true:

Granting without argument your discharge of a EULA, what you have a right
to do is reengineer your copy to work without the service.

You do not and will not, however, acquire any right to the ongoing service
through first sale doctrine.

C//
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:30:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca (alexti) wrote in
news:Xns95FF1355F8AsfjshTTalextiFJFsdsi@205.237.233.50:

> "Fred At Home" <fredathome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in
> news:420d223e$0$11122$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
>> The should make people take a simple test before allowing them access
>> to the WWW.
> In the years past it was exactly like that:)  You had to write your own
> web browser first, before getting to the WWW (or news client before
> getting to the usenet).

One of my old rants....

It used to be that you had to learn DOS to get to and learn UNIX to get
to and learn Internet. We had some rude people but no stupid ones. Then
Windows created "user friendly" connections and we got "users" who could
only use a computer but knew nothing about it. Then AOL created
foolproof connections for those who couldnt figure out Windows and we
got fools. Then WebTV created idiot-proof connections and it seems to be
doing a great job of it. Now we have Xbox but Ive run out of words.

Gandalf Parker
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:41:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) wrote in
news:cuvc25$924$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no:

> In article <Xns95FEA152D7A0Egandalfparker@208.201.224.154>,
> Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>>
>>Yes I know. Thats what I said. A fee to transfer the account. Thats
>>not a new thing. Its done with cars, household appliances, memberships
>>in gyms, all kinds of things. Saying that its a "charge to sell a game
>>I bought" would indeed make it something illegal. Saying its a fee to
>>transfer the support to a new owner isnt.
>
> I don't think that courts are, in general, very impressed with the use
> of linguistic loopholes in subverting the spirit of the law. Assuming
> that the right of first sale is still respected in the US, I would
> think that it trumps such shenanigans without much debate.
>
> I am curious, however, as to what you mean when you refer to cars and
> household appliances. If I buy, say, a Ford, is there a fee I have to
> pay to Ford to transfer ownership of the car (or the ability to use
> it) to someone else? What kind of household appliances follows this
> sort of scheme and how does it work?

Anywhere there are ongoing support issues which requires a database,
there can be fees to process a change of hands. With a washer/dryer still
on warranty there can be a fee to transfer that warranty to a new owner
or you can just void the warranty/support. With a car its abit less
sensible since most of the use of that database is "their" use (state,
taxes, police, etc) and not much for the owner who must pay for the
database change. But at least it could be said that it avoids the car
appearing stolen.

As I understand it, Steam provides the ability to download patches and
provides for multiplayer support so if you want to get their database
updated for continued support, and not appear as a "stolen" account, then
you pay a fee for updating. It sounds abit like other support databases
for major (non-game) softwares. Even GalCiv has something along that line
with Drengin.net doesnt it? Pretty much anywhere that you pay for the
services seperate from the tools which in our worlds would be things like
seperate charge for the "client" software from the charges to connect to
online worlds. It might be new to us but it doesnt seem that new to the
business world if its worded right.

Gandalf Parker
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:41:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote
> Anywhere there are ongoing support issues which requires a database,
> there can be fees to process a change of hands.

There doesn't need to be any fee for this; processing can be done via an
automated form which the buyer fills out. I can sell my copy of World of
Warcraft, and the buyer can change the email address associated with the
account whenever he wants, free of charge. When I move, I fill out
automated forms for my internet service provider, my bank, etc, to update my
address, all free of charge.

With a washer/dryer still
> on warranty there can be a fee to transfer that warranty to a new owner
> or you can just void the warranty/support.

By law, the product has to be fit for its intended use, for a reasonable
period of time, regardless of whether it has been resold, or whether or not
you mailed the warranty card when you bought it. "Registering" your washer
is just a means for the manufacturer to collect information for marketing
purposes; it does not affect the legal binding of your warranty.
!