Is it acceptable to give away the Steam key and play the DRM-free copy?
My understanding is that if you convert it to a Steam key, then the key is not giftable: "All purchases are for your personal use only."
If you convert it to a gift link, you can give it away of course, but then you lose your right to the DRM-free copy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but I think what you're supposed to do if you want to give the game away is to create a gift link. Nobody will stop you from creating a key and giving it away-- in fact, that's mostly what I do but I recently determined I should be creating gift links.
Comment has been collapsed.
I always interpreted the 'personal rules only' clause to mean that grey market selling isn't illegal. If they didn't want people to share and gift the codes, they wouldn't have made the gift option. I just think they don't want to encourage paypal reselling as it may affect their contracts with publishers.
Comment has been collapsed.
To clarify-- yes of course you can share and gift Humble games-- as long as you create a gift link. Once you generate a key, you're not supposed to gift it...although tbh I don't see why it matters that much. I guess with a gift link they get the recipient's email address...
Nice to see the Higgins face. A blast from my childhood. =)
Comment has been collapsed.
How would this apply then to getting multiple copies of the same game through Humble? For instance, in the last bundle there were 4 copies of Contagion. If we generate keys for each is Humble really gonna say, "Sorry you lost your three extra copies."?
Comment has been collapsed.
No they won't. But you should probably redeem one key, and create gifts for the other four. However, it's not the end of the world if you create four keys, IMO.
Comment has been collapsed.
It’s free. There is no per-copy activation charge or bandwidth fee.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes it's okay, but once I said on forums will be good to buy Outlast and keep the DRM free copy and trade the Steam key, a couple of users almost killed me for that, like I was satan or something, I see nothing wrong even if you sell or trade it away and keep the DRM copy.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe it's against their rules to play the DRM-free version. If you're going to sell/trade the game, you can create a gift link.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like all rules and agreements, it's up to the individual whether they comply with the rules they agreed to.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you were to go to a store (Gamestop or what have you), buy a copy of the game. Install it on your PC aswell as make a backup.
Then sell off/trade the game to a friend.
Ask yourself, is that legal?
Thats your answer... Because that is essentially what you're doing in trading or selling off the Steam key while holding on to the DRM-free copy.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree it's difficult to enforce, but I'm thinking about it more in the context of a giveaway. It's tempting to buy a game, give the key away and play the DRM-free copy, but would it taint the giveaway and leave entrants (and the winner) with a bad taste?
Comment has been collapsed.
You wouldn't leave the winner with a bad taste...I doubt anybody would follow up with you. I suppose if you said, "Yay! now I'm going to go break the agreement I made with Humble and play the DRM-free version!" you might annoy somebody who answered "No" above. But even then, maybe they don't care what other people do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, in the age of win10 and cloud computing&storage does it matter for typical PC user much? (Yeah, I know it's not the same threat level, but...)
And when it comes to bundle games, safety from malware is quite easy to get with correct tools
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't of course. What I mean is that data stolen by malware is often not very different from what user put by themselves in 3rd party hands - ie disk encryption keys in win10. And I've seen financial data, passwords and whatnot put in cloud for ease of acces/sharing
Comment has been collapsed.
Thats perfectly fine. I used to trade away steam keys and keep the DRM free copies. Now I just buy GoG copies since I disagree with a lot of Humble Bundle's policies though lol. Such as how they expect you to give the gift link rather than the steam key for no logical reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not a policy. The expectation of gift links comes from people you're trading with, who want a key that hasn't been seen by you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I read many times in threads on this forum that humble bundle wants you to use gift links and claims they will revoke keys if you give the keys instead. It was either them or indiegala. I've sort of lumped all those sites together in my head.
But basically, it is a policy one one of those sites. No one I have ever traded with has expected a gift link from me, most people preferred keys, in fact.
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting. My experience is that for Humble, people always want gift links. For IndieGala, they usually don't care.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm somewhere between the "No" and "sort of" choice. I haven't played or installed any of the DRM-free copies of games I've given away, but I'm not saying I never would. There are games that I would never buy, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't take the DRM-free copy out for a spin...almost like a demo. Just like in the shareware days, if I played a game and thought it was worthy, I would (generally) pay the shareware fee and support the developer. But there were plenty of shareware games I'd play for a bit, and not pay the fee. In most cases, I wouldn't eradicate it from my HD.
Comment has been collapsed.
On the other hand, I'm in the habit of just creating keys out of everything...it's just easier for me and the winner. I should probably use gift links if I'm planning to give them away, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tbh as a developer you'd probably hope when the Key/Gift generator is used the DRM-Free download option would disappear. I know people like to clutch their pearls over DRM but such a blatant way to abuse the system really is bullshit.
Comment has been collapsed.
From my communication with Humble about this, my impression was that they didn't really care. After pressing the support person I was told "The official word ultimately is that we do not promote sharing and purchases are meant for personal use only", but the initial answer was "If you've purchased a bundle you wish to gift a key from, you should still have full access to all the bundle's DRM-Free content on your initial download page".
Personally I see all versions of the game as one copy and won't gift. Exception is when I already own the game on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
It sounds to me like HB is trying to have its cake and eat it, too. They can tell developers, "oh no, consumers only bought one copy of the game, but you can give your audience a DRM-free option in case they don't like Steam-- but it's only one license." But then they can tell us, "well, if you gift the Steam key, you still have access to the DRM-free content, so, have fun!"
Comment has been collapsed.
If you only get one license then there is no discussion, humblebundle is making it wrong and should automatically remove the download links from your page, or not giving the option to gift separate copies for the games (the gift icon next to the steam keys).
Comment has been collapsed.
Ooh-- thanks for the link. I agree with bobo that it's one license. I'm not sure I agree that Humble is awesome because you'd think they'd remove the download link after you gifted the game-- protecting game developers a little bit in the process. Maybe they realized that it's easily circumvented so why bother? Heck, they don't even outright say that you can't use the DRM-free version after gifting.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get the point, but why is it not that the moment you use your key for yourself or gift it away that you instantly loose access to the DRM free version? Is it that humble says maybe tomorrow steam goes to shit and this way you still have another option to play your game? Otherwise i dont't get why they say "don't do it", but still make it so easy to abuse the system.
For me it's like borrowing a console game or something similar to a friend (Difference is they cost a lot more than bundles) or using family share on steam. Thing is in this case the game still stays with me and for example giving away a key here on steamgifts is different cause as you said two people using one licence. I never did it until now, but to be honest i wouldn't feel guilty at all.
Might be because i grew up in times with no internet and having not that much money, because we were still kids, so to be able to play all sorts of console or pc games we lend or traded games all the time with good friends or people we knew. (I would say there is not much difference. One person bought it and 5 or 6 ended up playing the game)
Comment has been collapsed.
same with telltale games where people even try to trade away the telltale key...
if you act like this you could also pirate the games...
so i voted for no
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, i bought the telltale "build your own bundle" bundle and recived steamand telltale keys.
and i saw a lot of keys like this later in tradesection
Comment has been collapsed.
There are no more options if you want to send gifts to other people. Giving away the drm-free content along with the steam key is not possible if you didn't buy the games separately from the humble store, so I don't understand why you are asking if the only possible option is the right one....
Comment has been collapsed.
https://support.humblebundle.com/hc/en-us/articles/202712460-Gifting-Steam-Keys
Note: Only keys can be gifted using this partial gifting system. DRM-free content is not permitted to be gifted to other people unless a separate gift purchase is made. More information about how to place a gift order can be found in the first two sections of this help article.
Comment has been collapsed.
From what I understood, it should be acceptable because partial gifting is allowed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Delete it from your HD (assuming you ever downloaded it in the first place). You paid for one license with two means of access (Steam and Download, since not everybody likes Steam). If you gift the Steam key, you no longer have a license.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's see. When I buy a game from humble bundle (or any other site) and the game has a drm-free version and a Steam key, is it considered as one license, or two licenses? I see that OP and you are saying you only get one license for the game with different ways to access the content. I can't find any source that states that you only get one license. If that is the case humblebundle should remove the possibility to gift keys individually (the gift icon next to the Steam key)
Comment has been collapsed.
Perro the only thing I am going to say on this subject is that I agree with everything you've said, they are well thought out and articulated statements.
If HB did not want you to keep the DRM Free copy, it would be removed from your access when you create a gift link. They do this for the HB Store, I bet they could easily do it for their bundles if they so chose.
You are buying a bundle of multiple licenses, you are not paying for just one "Humble Random Bundle Name 35" license. This thread and the previous one from 2 years ago are full of people who are arguing morality vs legality. This is a bundle, you are paying for the bundled licenses.
The idea that there's some magical legal contract that binds you to keeping the keys and DRM free copy together because you bought them under the same sale at one location is just absurd to me. Now, I'm not saying you should always just give away a key if it has a DRM free copy, but I don't think you are violating any form of law such as the DMCA.
If you want to argue the ethics vs morals vs legal issues that's another debate, but everyone that's acting like this is highly illegal to the point of piracy needs to take a breather.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, tbh it seems like common sense that if you give away a game you bought, you shouldn't be able to keep a copy for yourself at no extra charge. That said, common sense says that if you give away a game, there shouldn't still be a DRM-free download link in your Library. I've contacted HB support basically asking if it's okay to download/play a game that you've gifted.
Comment has been collapsed.
If humblebundle let you do it, then it is the norm. Everybody does it in that way, everyday. We buy bundles and give away the keys here.
Now you are saying we can't do that. I think you have the burden of proof.
What seems clear is that humblebundle is being shady on purpose with respect to that issue...
It would be enough if some developer whose games are sold in HB along with drm-free versions can explain how they work.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm saying that there is single license for both versions: steam and drm-free unless explicitly stated otherwise. When you give away steam key, you are also giving away the license, therfore you no longer have right to play or give away drn-free version. HB practices nor "everyone does that" are not valid excuses from legal pov. You have two licenses and can prove it or you don't have.
Agreed that system HB uses makes it shady
They don't have to. As I've been saying in this thread, license must be granted explicitly, cannot be assumed
Comment has been collapsed.
But you could buy some bundles for 1 cent and you get only drm free version. Then you could give 1$ and you get also the steam keys. So in fact you receive two licencies. First drm free only, and second for steam. If humble won't do that, the should remove drm free links after creating gift link for steam key. It's simple for them. So if they give you the possibility - it's legal. Of course you can have your own opinion but that is a matter of your conscience.
Comment has been collapsed.
You mean raising to $1? If so, you don't buy another product, just pay to have access via steam platform. Unless license coming with the product states otherwise. What HB enables or not is irrelevant, they only obligation is to give you the keys for the product you bought.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, it's your understanding. Mine is such that I buy two different licenses. If not you should have choice if you pay 1$ - drm free or steam key for each game.
For me it's the same as origin bundle, where you get origin and steam key as well (also steam key gives you another origin key for some games).
Comment has been collapsed.
It all depends on license agreement coming with the game, but usually it's one product/one person. HB ToS or business practice carries no meaning in that regard. And key is not equal to license (I've got ton of keys from MSDN - that doesn't mean I have right to sell/give/lend them or allow friends to use that software)
Comment has been collapsed.
The burden of proof always falls on the Prosecution and never on the Defense.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, Perro is the owner there is no claim to it. He purchased the bundle, he is quoting Humble Bundle's own support's answers.
You are the one questioning him about multiple licenses. Something that had nothing to do with his original post at all. You inverted the question towards him, putting him on the defensive argument to answer your question since the scenario and roles have changed.
The prosecution role would be played by those saying that ownership is not granted to the purchaser. It becomes their obligation to prove how ownership is not given.
Comment has been collapsed.
He asked for official source that he doesn't have 2 separate licenses for a single game. That's not how it works - you claim ownership rights, you have to be able to prove them. And that's all it was about in my reply - if I wanted to discuss something from op, i'd reply to it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It helps the developer that purchasers aren't getting two copies of the game when they only purchased it once.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're not arguing for buying another copy though. You're arguing for simply not using the copy you own. The developer gains money when you buy their game, but they don't lose money when you play it. If you weren't gonna buy 2 copies anyway, they couldn't care less if you play the version you have left or not --- or actually, they could care, and if so they'd prefer you to play it and give them a larger playerbase.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm arguing for buying another copy if you want to play the game, and I'm arguing that you don't own the DRM-free copy if you've gifted away the game. If you don't play the game, then I guess you can keep the DRM-free copy on your HD. =)
Anyway, as I said above, I'm not hard-line in the "No" category. I think I know the intent of the system (that if you gift it, you don't have a right to the DRM-free version). But I'm also not saying I'd never play the DRM-free version in any circumstances. If it's a good game and I enjoy it, I feel like I should purchase a copy of the game for myself, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I usually do the opposite. I get the steam keys, and share the download link for the DRM-free games with my friends. Is that okay too?
Comment has been collapsed.
Might be trolling us. Not an accusation, just a suspicion.
Comment has been collapsed.
I meant trolling us as far as obviously it's wrong to share the DRM free copy. But TBH, I read it as sharing the DRM-free installer, not the link. Not really much of a difference, ultimately.
Comment has been collapsed.
1: Steam is a bonus- for example, you can buy a greenlight game, then later get an extra Steam key.
In a bundle, you can pay 1 cent and get DRM-Free, but pay 99 cents more to get Steam keys.
2: Steam is singular use, DRM-Free is not.
3: DRM-Free is presented on your account for personal download, with no options for sharing (and explicit mention in the rules that it shouldn't be shared).
In all the ways that matter, it is entirely different in presentation and outcome- ergo, the principle is NOT the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sooth did a good job covering all the reasons why it's not the same.
Sharing the DRM-Free file or link to download is explicitly forbidden, and is a particularly stark violation of license if you use the DRM-file and share it with someone else or multiple people at the same time. The Steam key is in a much more ambiguous grey area which HB and individual developers/publishers have been inconsistent in their stance. It is not 100% clear whether or not the inclusion of it means the inclusion of a separate license from the DRM-free file.
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps because the DRM-free version can be spread around and used by different people, whereas a Steam key can only be used by the one who redeemed it?
Redistributing DRM-free copies is like pirating them.
Comment has been collapsed.
In fact you get two different licences: the first allows you to use the content via Steam and the second to use without any third party interference. Though it concerns in theory the same content, you get two different licences, two "contracts" of use. So you have the right for two different uses of the same content, which means that gifitng the Steam licence while keeping the DRM-free one is legit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you think the developer of the game would agree with you? That they sold two licenses of the game in one purchase?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that game developers agree/believe that they sold two licenses to the game for the price of one?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not clear to me that you are paying for two licenses, merely two (or more!) ways of accessing your one license. I agree that the DRM-free link should be removed, and this matter should be clarified by HB. However, perhaps it benefits HB not to clarify it, so that folks buy games from HB and gift/sell/trade the key while playing the DRM-free version.
For what it's worth, bobofatt (SG mod) clearly believes it's one license.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually that's not a problem of the buyer but a matter of agreement between the developper and the reseller (HB in our case). That's why the DRM-free version is not available in every bundle but only in some cases (in fact most of bundles do not offer a DRM-free extra licence).
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not clear to me that the DRM-free version is an "extra license." I suspect it is not, but HB doesn't do a good job clarifying this (so I just contacted HB support). For what it's worth, bobofatt (SG mod) believes it's one license.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's take it otherwise. When you buy a Steam key, for whichever game may it be, you don't buy only the game itself but also the Steam services that come with it : eg. possibility to back-up your content, family-share, cloud save, trading cards, achievements or workshop where availables etc.. DRM-free versions do not offer any of these extra services. Thus, in practice there are two different service packages.
I can understand how an (uninformed of HB practices - if that's the case) developper could feel, but it's quite obvious that if HB offers two different packages for the price of one it's not the buyer's problem. On the other hand, there are people who don't wish to use steam, albeit they re a minority. HB gives them the opportunity to buy indie games bundled at a low price without having to pass via Steam...
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't stand steam (in a 'I'll use it, but if I have another option, I won't' way), so I actually end up giving away Steam keys whenever I get duplicates, just because I can't stand 'the waste'. It's seriously stressful to me, to see extra copies of games sitting around that someone could enjoy, not being used.
[And yes, that's actually why I got into game trading in the first place, to get rid of games, rather'n get new ones =O]
Well, one way to view it is, 'mac version' and 'windows version' CDs included in a physical copy.
You keep the version that suits your needs, and resell/giveaway the version you won't use.
That's acceptable for physical copies, so why would digital be any different, without any special rules being listed to indicate such?
Comment has been collapsed.
Seeing my backlog growing week upon week I totally understand what you say. Latelly I almost force myself to play even if I'm abusing my time just beacause I fill a sort of 'obligation' to reduce the waste of activated but not played keys. On the other hand I can't play outside Steam anymore. I like having all these extra stuff that it offers (I can't stand not having stats of my gameplays :p )
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam owns the games, not you, if they're on steam client [since Steam provides a service, not direct products, they can legally remove access to products at any time- your fault for not downloading them to PC when you could].
The library interface is nice, but I'm not a fan of all the rest [and often deliberately play games in off-line mode :P]. Achievements, etc, don't hold any value for me.
So yeah, for me, DRM-Free is just better- especially since I only ever play a game once, and then I'm done with it [With only like 5 exceptions in all my life :) ].
But yeah, the obligation of completing games can be pretty pressuring when you've got so many of them ;'(
Yet another reason to only play them once, eh? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
The Steam client is free. Its services are free for anybody who activates a game on its platform (including free games). I don't agree with the argument that because you have access to a version that does not use a free service, that you have somehow bought an additional license. But that's just my opinion. =)
Comment has been collapsed.
So far you've misreferenced chronological factors and used invalid support sources.
Bobafett's opinion doesn't even remotely have bearing on this- please stop referencing him, it just makes your argument look even weaker, in a "Yeah, but my MOM loves this t-shirt color!" kind of way. Except in this case, it's not even your own mom, so it's kinda awkward, to boot. :P
Anyway, your argument is pretty invalid, regardless- sites like GOG make it explicitly clear that they expect you to share DRM-Free copies among friends and family as you please.
Humble has indicated this is NOT okay for their DRM-Free copies.
Ergo, from general practices as well as deliberate omission in the rules, one assumes it IS okay for DRM-Free+Steam.
Even if it isn't the developer's intent, we ALL make decisions in life where we don't do full research and we end up not being entirely pleased with the outcomes. They'll learn from it- and if you want to support their regretful decisions, rather than helping individual people in need, you can take the money you were totally going to donate to a charity helping the downtrodden, and direct it as an additional payment to the developers.
In fact, you can just stop paying base price in bundles altogether. Start paying $20 for $1 bundles, show your affection.
Keep in mind that prior to the raise of minimum for steam keys, there was no minimum at all.
Ergo, what now costs $1 once cost 2 cents.
So if you're saying developers don't know what they're getting into, offering DRM-free copies on a choose-your-own-price retailer, after yeeears of supporting documentation on the site's approach to things, then you're straight up calling the developers/publishers idiots.
Which, you may be right.
Just not really something you should be making baseless claims toward.
Sure, completely irrelevant figures may support your viewpoint, but all the supporting evidence, historically from the same site, as well as how it is approached by the field in general, counter your viewpoint.
The point is, you're making baseless and logically flawed insistences of us, when you aren't doing anything different yourself by simply paying base price on the bundle [which, presumably you do].
'Pay what you want' doesn't NECESSARILY mean 'pay the bare minimum', after all.
Start evidencing facts: Reference regretful developers, reference humble site rules, reference your actions that counter the norm and your reasoning for them, etc.
So far you're just pushing your own unsupported perspective :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmm, I'm not going to address everything here, because your tone and word choice suggests that we're not going to get too far. But there are a few things I'll address:
Bobafett's opinion doesn't even remotely have bearing on this- please stop referencing him, it just makes your argument look even weaker
Bobofett is a respected member of the SG community, an SG moderator, and I suspect somebody pretty familiar with the game industry. I'd much rather cite him than my Mom, who buys fart apps on her Nook.
sites like GOG make it explicitly clear that they expect you to share DRM-Free copies among friends and family as you please
Are you saying that if I buy a game from GOG, I should send installers to my friends and family around the world? If so, could you educate me about where they say that-- because I should take advantage of it! If that's not what you're saying, can you clarify? I do agree that if you buy a game on GOG, then anybody in your household can use it. But that's different from sharing DRM-Free copies among friends and family as you please, IMO.
when you aren't doing anything different yourself by simply paying base price on the bundle [which, presumably you do]. 'Pay what you want' doesn't NECESSARILY mean 'pay the bare minimum', after all.
I don't always pay the minimum required. I'd say I usually do, but maybe 25% of the time I'll pay more. Not $100 more, but you get idea.
I agree that Humble site rules are unclear: they say that you can gift games via gift links. They don't say what happens to your right to use the DRM-free download at that point, so I contacted support. And I certainly can't get inside a game developer's head (I don't personally know any game developers who sell to HB). I suspect most of them know that there are people who sell/trade/gift the Steam key and play the DRM-free version. But I also suspect that the revenue they get from HB is still worthwhile, so they continue to sell to HB.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not going to address everything here, because your tone and word choice suggests that we're not going to get too far.
I always sound like myself :'(
Bobofett is a respected member of the SG community, an SG moderator, and I suspect somebody pretty familiar with the game industry. I'd much rather cite him than my Mom, who buys fart apps on her Nook.
I don't respect Bobafett at all; being a SG moderator is a very unqualified and minimally managed position, it means nothing; and I've also been involved in the gaming industry- and nothing in the linked post even indicates he was basing off of actual fundamentals in play, just his own personal opinions.
He's still not a direct source, regardless, which makes him irrelevant to the topic.
Are you saying that if I buy a game from GOG, I should send installers to my friends and family around the world? If so, could you educate me about where they say that-- because I should take advantage of it! If that's not what you're saying, can you clarify? I do agree that if you buy a game on GOG, then anybody in your household can use it. But that's different from sharing DRM-Free copies among friends and family as you please, IMO.
Speaking of tone..
That doesn't have any bearing on what I said, and seems to just be written to incite, so I'm going to pass over it.
The point was, of course, that GOG allows unlimited personal use of a game, with a single license. Humble offers two licenses each strictly limited at a single use each, but gives no indication that both licenses are limited to a single account- in fact, they give plenty of indications to the contrary.
I don't always pay the minimum required. I'd say I usually do, but maybe 25% of the time I'll pay more. Not $100 more, but you get idea.
Legit kudos to you, then.
I can't afford to pay more than minimum, unfortunately- and even then, my purchase decision is determined by how many copies I get.
I agree that Humble site rules are unclear: they say that you can gift games via gift links. They don't say what happens to your right to use the DRM-free download at that point, so I contacted support.
But I also suspect that the revenue they get from HB is still worthwhile, so they continue to sell to HB.
Humble is a quick, massive cash influx. Developers usually focus on the immediate gain, rather than being overly concerned with later outcomes of low tier purchases.
It's a great resource to get funds to bring your company out of a tight spot, or to fund your next game, all while getting your company more visibility.
In other words, it's almost always an investment in future products you're planning to offer, rather than concern over the ones currently being offered [high tier aside, but they're not usually of concern for loss of investment, either].
Consider things like the free Bioshock Infinite game, or other game promotions.
Marketing, trading card sales, immediate cash influx.. there are a lot of factors involved in a decision to bundle/etc.
Add in that there's no indication that DRM-Free + Steam copies noticeably reduce future profits, assuming negative outcome of a side-element of a carefully thought out developer decision, seems like you're trying to indicate your perspective as being superior to that of the developer that decided to provide multiple versions of the game.
Hubris aside, as I noted, if you can provide any indication of not even indication of financial loss, but just simple developer regret, you'd have an argument.
But thus far it seems just a conveyance of your own perspectives, rather than an accounting for all the factors involved.
Which, again, isn't me arguing against your perspective- just indicating that you're not actually saying anything of note, yet- so far all you've said is "I personally feel this is not appropriate, this random person agrees with me, and I don't understand the philosophical principles of time and so will use it as a supporting premise even when it doesn't serve as such." :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I'd hazard to say that there are a number of folks who implicitly respect anybody who contributes to SG in manner that he and the other mods do. And while I didn't go and verify his gaming credentials, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
You're right-- my sarcasm wasn't great-- I fell into the trap. If you're willing to overlook that, I'll say that the rest was not meant to incite. Maybe you can educate me (via a link to GOG?) how GOG "expects you to share DRM-Free copies among friends and family as you please" (those are your words-- not meant to incite). Unlimited personal use of a game would seem to preclude sharing it with friends and family "as you please," or maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that. Can you let them use the game at your household? Of course. If you're at a friend's house, can you download the game and use it there? Of course-- though the game should be deleted when you leave. Is there more to it than that?
But again, our simple disagreement is how many licenses you buy when you buy at HB. To me, it's logical that if you buy it once, then you own it once...but because HB is awesome, they let you play it on multiple platforms (where available) or DRM-free if you want to avoid Steam.
It's like if you buy a physical game (back in the day) and it came with Mac and Windows CDs. Can you give/sell/trade the Mac CD if you only own a Windows machine? I would say no-- you bought the game once, but can play it on multiple platforms.
I pretty much agree with your assessment of a dev's thoughts on HB or the decision to run promotions for or bundle their games. But that doesn't mean to me that you're getting two or more licenses of the game for your single HB purchase-- even if they wholly know that in practice that's what's going to happen in many cases.
I don't think my perspective is superior; I just don't think that the developer is expressly selling multiple copies of the game for one purchase. I could be wrong.
I'll agree that much of what I'm saying is opinion, and not researched fact. I am still waiting for HB's response. If they say, "by all means, give any Steam or Origin keys that you're not using to your friends" then I'll say I was wrong-- although even then, I think that perspective/policy is more pro-HB than pro-developer. And yes, the dev can always choose not to sell via Humble.
What is a fact, though, is that the only valid way to gift keys is by checking the box and purchasing the bundle/game as a gift. That way, they at least get the recipient's email address... ;-)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's like if you buy a physical game (back in the day) and it came with Mac and Windows CDs. Can you give/sell/trade the Mac CD if you only own a Windows machine? I would say no-- you bought the game once, but can play it on multiple platforms.
Er. Yes, yes you can. In fact, that's what most of us did, AND the courts ruled it as legal, AND publishers kept that in mind, usually offering seperate versions of the two OSes, or even charging extra if both were included.
That was my very own example FOR it being two copies, rather than one, in fact..
But again, our simple disagreement is how many licenses you buy when you buy at HB. To me, it's logical that if you buy it once, then you own it once...but because HB is awesome, they let you play it on multiple platforms (where available) or DRM-free if you want to avoid Steam.
Preclusion. Any seller is required to make you make a decision on purchase if only a single purchase is intended. At the point that two purchases are provided, without one precluding the other, you in fact do obtain two copies.
Moreover, while the DRM-Free can be considered a 'personal backup copy', there are no limitations on the steam key.
In essence, you're given a personal physical copy of the game that you can trade, sell, etc; as well as a backup service allowing you to play the game even if you traded it, 'accidentally sold it', regretted selling it, et al.
The thing is, it's INCREDIBLY easy to limit people to a single copy, or to tie copies to one another [at least, up until the point that piracy is considered].
The fact that they don't limit people, and that legality states clearly that consumers have full rights over purchases [excluding explicit illegal usage, such as making duplicate copies] indicates that yes, you get two copies.
In fact, EVERYTHING indicates that, from how previous muli-platform games were treated, to how other sites treat it, to how Humble itself makes it clear DRM-Free can't be gifted, but Steam can be.
The problem here is that what you're assuming flies in the face of previous practices and legal freedoms currently in place. That doesn't mean the current system is RIGHT, or that you're WRONG, it's that you have no basis for arguing the point so long as you can't point to where the seller (Humble) or publishers or courts state something new on the matter, contrary to established practices.
You are, of course, still free to feel disdainful for others' interpretations, that's totally your prerogative. You should nevertheless still consider that people aren't necessarily doing things to exploit a system, but because of perceived legitimacy, as it is supported by all the existing foundations relevant to it.
Unlimited personal use of a game would seem to preclude sharing it with friends and family "as you please," or maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that. Can you let them use the game at your household? Of course. If you're at a friend's house, can you download the game and use it there? Of course-- though the game should be deleted when you leave. Is there more to it than that?
That's basically it, yeah. You're technically not supposed to install it on a friend's computer or share it outside of your household, but if you, say, install it on a laptop and let them borrow it, it amounts to much the same thing.
My point wasn't that you could freely give copies away [to the contrary] but that there's an understanding that people other than you may be playing the game [such as family members and friends who are visiting].
This is in line with traditional expectations on how games are used [or, really, how any commercial product is used- you may buy a leafblower, but you may not be the only one in the family using it, and you may loan it out to a neighbor (but you can't somehow make an exact duplicate of it to give to a neighbor permanently).
Humble DRM-Free technically works the same way, but also adds a steam key.
So, point being-
Imagine if you bought a non-DRM game (they do exist).
If you installed the game, could you then sell the physical installer?
One might argue yes, since you're selling the backup installer, and only retaining the installation. IE, the reverse of the keeping of DRM-Free and giving away Steam.
If you ignore temporal factors, whether you play that installation before selling the physical copy, or after, the actual end effects are the same.
Ergo, no matter what arguments you make, you can't claim the approach of holding on to it before affects the developers any differently than holding on to it after.
To me, it's logical that if you buy it once, then you own it once
But.. I bought it twice? I got DRM-Free for 1 cent, then bought keys for 99 cents or $1.
Humble makes it clear they're ADDING steam keys to your purchase [their phrasing], not 'unlocking' or 'converting' your purchase to allow for steam activation.
And, again, you're griping about holding on to a 1 cent purchase, even if you did buy it bundled in with a $1 one, rather than buying an additional copy of it [which, by the way, I tried, Humble wouldn't even let me, if I tried doing that after purchasing the steam key version first (though they would if I bought the 1 cent purchase first)]
You're attributing a whole lot of financial loss and woe to something the developers are giving away for 1 cent.
although even then, I think that perspective/policy is more pro-HB than pro-developer. And yes, the dev can always choose not to sell via Humble.
Agh, again:
Humble doesn't build the bundles, they only host them. So you can't blame humble for it, no matter what humble's policies are. If the developers decide to include DRM-free, or not, that's WHOLLY on them. Likewise if they decide to include complex mechanisms to prevent you from activating more than one copy- which Humble WOULD allow, by the way.
So again, don't blame this on humble, it's a conscious decision by the developers/publishers.
What is a fact, though, is that the only valid way to gift keys is by checking the box and purchasing the bundle/game as a gift. That way, they at least get the recipient's email address... ;-)
Well, that we'll agree on :)
Comment has been collapsed.
You're technically not supposed to install it on a friend's computer or share it outside of your household, but if you, say, install it on a laptop and let them borrow it, it amounts to much the same thing.
Okay, that I agree with-- but I wouldn't characterize that as "GOG expects you to share DRM-Free copies among friends and family as you please." That sounded to me like you were saying you can give copies of the games ("share") with others. Just a misunderstanding then.
In essence, you're given a personal physical copy of the game that you can trade, sell, etc; as well as a backup service allowing you to play the game even if you traded it, 'accidentally sold it', regretted selling it, et al.
Are you just saying that you can buy a game on HB and sell the Steam key (as long as it's a Humble gift)? Or are you saying more than that?
If you installed the [DRM-free] game, could you then sell the physical installer? One might argue yes, since you're selling the backup installer, and only retaining the installation. IE, the reverse of the keeping of DRM-Free and giving away Steam.
Hmm, I don't think you'll convince me of this. Certainly GOG and Humble don't let you sell the DRM-free games you buy from them. In the case of GOG, you can't even gift or trade them (unless it's purchased as a gift). I even emailed support about that in 2014. But maybe you were saying something else.
But.. I bought it twice? I got DRM-Free for 1 cent, then bought keys for 99 cents or $1.
I always interpreted it as you are paying the extra >= $0.99 for the ability/option to activate your game via Steam...not that it's an extra copy. But we've been over this. =)
Comment has been collapsed.
Misunderstanding, yes.
Basically, yes. There's nothing preventing consumer resale.
My example was still based around physical copies, where you used to often get the ability to register online for access to a backup install file.
And again, whether your interpretation is right or not, it's still just one cent- one cent that humble won't (or at least wouldn't) even let you spend if you bought the steam purchase first. :X
Comment has been collapsed.
Sort of. It's not strictly ILlegal, but I think it's NOT acceptable. fixed xD - but its just my opinion :) No such answer so i I decided to ask Dan Quayle.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't. I mean, it's probably not wrong, given the infrastructure that Humble uses (since they could easily revoke the DRM free copy if you gift the key) but I only play on Steam and a few non-Steam games anyway and I activate everything I can get my grubby hands on, so it's moot since I'd have the game on Steam anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Didn't even think about it since it's no problem for me. I only give away keys for games i already own, therefore already have means to play the game legally.
But i think of the steam key and the DRM-free copy as different things, which would allow this, but would feel like it would be not the right thing to do so from a moral standpoint.
Comment has been collapsed.
its simple. its ok to gift. couse you buy two versions of the game. first the DRM-Free copy. second the steam keys. so you get 2 license. so you can gift one the some one without any abuses. and its simple just read it befor you buy. it wirtten on the HB page before you pay. couse you can buy only a drm-free copy too.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't mind either way. You paid, you do what you like with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this control has to be done by humble bundle. They have to provide only one DRM or non-DRM key. No other key should be provided. This will prevent users abuse to use same key on different DRM's in different computers.
I think it should be this way, since all buys there are for presonal use only (by personal I mean who will redeem, not who buy). If one key is redeemable everywhere, it is forbidden to revoke (by law in many countries). What is sold, it is sold. We presume that company knows what they are doing and their respective consequences. In other words, it is their responsability (DRM staff, game company or humble bundle) to control this, not users responsabilities. the reason is simple: users don't hold the technology or access to control that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right. Even if there WAS an issue with it, it wouldn't be a legal one, and it wouldn't currently be enforceable with the site structure as it is.
So even those with the best intentions, would still likely just be a minority against people then deliberately misusing the system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like that: if an user can redeem in multiples DRM then is a multiple key.
Forbid multiple redeem when the key is redeemable in multiple DRM is like to put a switch on software configs saying "do not use this option". It is like to give one person a key to a door and say "don't open this door". If a user can do ANYTHING without bypass or crack anything, the user is doing something that is allowed to do. There's no misuse when you do something that any system allows you to do... because it is their responsabilities to prevent multiple redeem.
By the way, legal and forbidden are different things. companies do not do laws. what they do is policy or terms of use... so they can just forbid. and more, if you redeem before forbidden, it was allowed. revoke what you did redeem is purely DRM abusive power.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's pretty easy to implement either/or purchasing rules, linked-gifts, and commentary in the rules.
People will always try to get the best benefit/make the most efficient use of any product they by, regardless of what it is.
If a seller wants to limit that [and legally, they usually can't] they should indicate such, as it flies against commonly accepted practices.
Which, sure, being commonly accepted doesn't necessarily mean POSITIVE- often, it means the opposite.
And noone is arguing that sites like G2A aren't scummy, but then, what they're doing IS illegal, since resellers AREN'T allowed to resale indirectly purchased games.
Comment has been collapsed.
people SHOULD try to get the best benefit of what they bought because they paid for it. costumer money are not trash matter.
about forbid, if you want to forbid something, you DO NOT ALLOW the person do whatever they want to. you don't ask, you DO forbid. if it is possible do it without bypass anything, then is allowed. like I said, you don't make an option available to everyone with a tag "do not use this option".
if you hold the technology to forbid, you DO forbid, not ask to.
could you point what law they (costumers?) are breaking (in your country)?
because in brazil they are legal... no law (not terms or policy) here says otherwise
I was not talking about G2A... but since you mentioned if what they are doing is illegal, amazon, ebay, humble bundle, indiegala and such sites are illegal as well.
with the same logic, steamgifts, steamcompanion and any other "giveaway" site is illegal as well because donate is selling without payback transaction. the donnor have full responsabilities for what they provide. as much as someone who sells something for the very first time.
Comment has been collapsed.
could you point what law they are breaking (in your country)?
I was not talking about G2A... but since you mentioned if what they are doing is illegal, amazon, ebay, humble bundle, indiegala and such sites are illegal as well.
In the United States, consumers are allowed to freely do anything they want with their property, so long as it doesn't violate copyright laws [ie, illegal duplication of a product].
RETAILERS, on the other hand (like G2A) must purchase license to sell new copies of products directly from the manufacturer. Since G2A is not doing such [while sites like Amazon, etc, are] they're engaging in illegal sale.
In very simple terms, G2A is engaging in illegal smuggling to avoid paying appropriate sale fees to the developer/initial seller. This is also why their keys have been invalidated in large quantities in the past by developers, since they were illegally obtained.
All the other sites you mentioned have explicit rights to sell to consumers- and only consumers, not to other retailers.
I'm not sure what kind of logic you're using to associate Steamgifts/etc with the topic, since these aren't retailers, but, at best, redistribution platforms. There's no investment and no direct sale, on the part of the site itself, ergo, they're safe.
In fact, that's one of the loopholes many torrent sites use- so long as they're willing to remove illegal elements when prompted to, they're technically not breaking any laws by offering a data hosting platform, even if it IS primarily used illegally.
Though, in this case, there's nothing remotely illegal about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get your point, but I don't think it is ilegally duplicated if this "duplicate" act was made by DRM that produced a multiple DRM redeemable key. the user contribute nothing to make the key duplicated. In other hand, DRM itself made a duplicated key... so there's no illegal copyright issue there since user has no control of it. if someone is doing something ilegal, it is DRM itself who did break copyright laws making duplicated keys AND induced to costumer to "break the law" with a duplicated key.
about G2A, they shouldn't contribute at all to devs, since it is already contributed at the very first sell. you are saying something like we should contribute to devs when doing a giveaway.
people don't get it but G2A don't provide keys. G2A is just a place where people seel keys to other... exactly like steamgifts but with no payback transaction. they just provide a place to do so. by the way, there's nothing against reselling on Steam terms and conditions (already looked once). so sites like that aren't even forbidden.
about torrent, they stands for piracy spread which is ilegal (now we are talking about breakimg laws)... if the final product is ilegal, what they do is ilegal. if the product was legal, then torrent should be legal (like other files sharing sites).
Comment has been collapsed.
I get your point, but I don't think it is ilegally duplicated if this "duplicate" act was made by DRM that produced a multiple DRM redeemable key. the user contribute nothing to make the key duplicated. In other hand, DRM itself made a duplicated key... so there's no illegal copyright issue there since user has no control of it. if someone is doing something ilegal, it is DRM itself who did break copyright laws making duplicated keys AND induced to costumer to "break the law" with a duplicated key.
I don't really follow. Just so we're clear, I've been speaking in support of your points this whole time, not once arguing against them, so are we actually on the same page?
about G2A, they shouldn't contribute at all to devs, since it is already contributed at the very first sell. you are saying something like we should contribute to devs when doing a giveaway.
In the US, sellers have the right to set fees as they please, dependent on who they sell to. They also have the right to restrict purchases to corporate buyers.
Bundles are explicitly prohibited from purchase by resellers, ergo, the purchase is illegal.
The cost of the bundle is also significantly less than the fees G2A would have to pay if they obtained the copies legitimately. MOREOVER, G2A does not have to pay proper taxes on their sales, by doing what they're doing.
(Note, it WOULDN'T be in Steam's restrictions, since steam is the platform, not the seller. You're talking standard US law in combination with the restrictions on purchase set by the retail sites (in this case, Humble Bundle, etc)).
And as far as being a trading site, that's fine.
But G2A is famous for putting up keys on their own (ala HotRandomKeys and the like), and THAT'S when it's a problem.
I assure you, it's quite illegal :P
about torrent, they stands for piracy spread which is ilegal (now we are talking about breakimg laws)... if the final product is ilegal, what they do is ilegal. if the product was legal, then torrent should be legal (like other files sharing sites).
Actually, there are many circumstances where torrenting is FULLY legal.
For example, a fair number of my steam games don't work, due to Valve never applying any sort of oversight on quality. So, I torrent games I already own so as to have working copies.
(Note, you're already legally allowed to make backup copies of your games, so long as they're for personal use.)
There's also a HUGE grey area where torrenting could be valid [such as avoiding governmental restrictions prohibiting the sale of a game, trying a game before purchasing where a demo or refund isn't offered, etc].
Is piracy just for the sake of piracy ever commendable? No, no it isn't.
But like I noted initially, torrenting is associated with potential illegality- SteamGifts and the like is NOT.
Comment has been collapsed.
I read it all and agreed with some points and didn't with others... sorry for a VERY late reply but I got a judicial inventory that took all my time past days. sometimes I'm very interested in US legal system because, the same time it is similar with brazilian one, it is different... for example, we don't have this fee settings that you mentioned... they (devs and sellers) just simply agree what how much they will receive as well as sellers and resellers.
I'll not extend much but we should not apply different rules for similar situations saying that one is ilegal or irregular (g2a) when others (ebay) is not. they can be forbidden or ilegal in some countries, but not in all of them. what I usualy see here is that most people call them ilegal or irregular or gray or whatever because they don't know how DRM works, they don't know how resell works and so on. they just spread unfounded non-sense off of any regulation or law ignoring that there's a LOT of other sites on internet that do the same situation that is largely used by its own country.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, sure, but the problem with G2A isn't local laws.
It's that developers can legally- and HAVE!- invalidated keys sent through G2A, due to the laws on reselling
Again: NOT speaking about G2A's trading section, which is similar to ebay and steamgifts, and is not illegal, but speaking of G2A buying keys and selling them for profit (which is in contrast to how Tremor Games does it, as well: And Tremor games also guarantees keys for free, while G2A charges you a scammy, expensive auto-subscription fee to verify keys work
It doesn't matter what country you're in, no country is going to take umbrage at a developer removing "stolen" keys from the market. And since the seller (G2A) doesn't have the actual contract to present that proves direct legal sale, they in turn can't sue the developer.
Again, the stress of these unreliable keys is put on the people who buy from G2A, who happily puts the expenses on its consumers, which no other resale site does (ex, Ebay will refund you the full costs on a refund or replacement, same as any retailer, such as amazon, out of their pocket).
Moreover, G2A WILLFULLY breaks laws [regardless of if you agree with them, or localization exceptions] on things such as taxation.
Also, no, sorry, taxation doesn't work like you indicated.
Any time someone sells an item, a tax is levied, no matter how often it has been resold.
"Selling Personal Items. Many new eBay sellers wonder if they need to pay taxes on the items they sell. The answer is yes, but only if there is a profit on the sale."
Ebay and Ebay sellers both pay taxes. ALL sites that involve an actual payment mechanic pay taxes, regardless of where the items came from.
EXCEPT G2A, which will charge fees for taxes, but simply pocket them.
Make no mistake, G2A SPECIFICALLY is an illegal scam site, even while many- to you, seemingly similar- sites are not.
Perhaps the difference in our perspectives comes from all the English-written articles on G2A, not being available to read in Portuguese? Otherwise, go check google :)
Comment has been collapsed.
how can you be sure that they pocket them? have you ever worked for them? and by the way, that is not how things works around the globe. if you sell something, theres no taxes plus taxes. if things works like that, there will be no profit for a third or fourth reseller... even less for devs because this will just add even more value to product every time that it goes to next seller. if a key is revoked, dev will steal who bought it first, who reselled and who bought it for the third time. the profit has been made for the first time from the person who bought it first. let this happend is like legalize crime since the profit has been made for the first bought. if something like that happends in brazil, steam will receive a communication to return everything user has redeemed because once key is valid, the profit has been made on the first buy. actualy, there's something very wrong thinking that someone can revoke what was legal made (key production). it is the SAME thing when Steam or devs decided to revoke a gift that you received from someone who bought it saying that you buying from a reseller. yep, absurd like that because gifter will be (randomly) considered reseller and you are the third buyer (look that you don't even have to go to g2a to do what g2a does). you may think that g2a sells something but you are very wrong about that. they just offers a place where one person sells to other person EXACTLY like ebay and such other sites does. internet is not this crime fest that you sell something then make it disappear someday to make someone (whoever it is) buy another one. they don't have any right to take back what you bought. if you buy a key to redeem a game, the key IS the game. if you buy a key to redeem a book, the key IS the book. if someone decide to "revoke" the key, they are, in fact, stealing the book, game, movie from whoever has the key. this is how things works on the world outside internet and this is how it should be applied on internet as well. (sorry for bad format to read or numerous typos. I'm on phone).
Comment has been collapsed.
how can you be sure that they pocket them?
They allow you to skip paying them, and there's enough indications they're not properly reporting sales.
Again, if you have an issue, take it up with the articles being written on them, and the consumers reporting complaints.
and by the way, that is not how things works around the globe.
Completely irrelevant to western markets catering to western sellers under western-centric internet laws.
r. if a key is revoked, dev will stole who bought it first, who reselled and who bought it for the third time. the profit has been made for the first time from the person who bought it first.
People have complained- vocally- at developers who disabled unlicensed keys.
And you're making a lovely argument for something that's not actually applicable.
These are 'keys that fell off the back of a truck', not legitimately purchased keys.
Again, G2A is paying FAR LESS for the keys through bundle prices than they would have to if they purchased it legally. Sellers have complete right to restrict purchase, where bigotry isn't a factor.
They explicitly state the keys aren't for retail, and G2A knowingly buys them against the purchase agreement listed.
that someone can revoke what was legal made.
Wasn't legal to begin with.
you may think that g2a sells something but you are very wrong about that. they just offers a place where one person sells to other person EXACTLY like ebay and such other sites does.
Wrong. HotRandomKeys and other sites are G2A run (and have the same scammy protection grift in place), and G2A has supposedly sponsored keys on their end, through their market, as well.
they don't have any right to take back what you bought.
If someone buys something with a stolen credit card, it doesn't matter if they resold the product, the person who bought it from them takes the hit. The 2nd buyer does not get reimbursed by anyone for the initial unlawful purchase.
For purchases that were made unlawfully, by smuggling past fees and tariffs, or in violation of the purchasing contract, someone can definitely invalidate the purchase for the initial buyer. That it hurts subsequent rebuyer is on them, for buying from a shady source.
I assure you, it works exactly the same here on the internet, and off the internet.
The only difference is that with digital copies, it's a lot easier to have 'games fall off the back of a truck'/avoid fees/etc than with physical copies.
Again, several ticles on this, you can google freely. There's a google translation plugin that helps, if needed.
To reiterate: Outside of their market, which is totally fine, G2A is known for unlawful and scammy behavior that no other site or company you've mentioned thus far participates in.
You're blindly making assertions that G2A is like the other sites you mentioned, despite it rather clearly not being so.
You can argue whether the things G2A is being criminalized for is right or not, but it is most certainly the only site acting in an openly unlawful manner- at least, according to most western laws, as I'm familiar with them.
Comment has been collapsed.
now I just realize that you don't know how g2a works. this may apply to drm key production too. there's no argue with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm referencing articles and actual G2A sites, and have offered you the chance to invalidate the elements presented there. Moreover, even if I was entirely wrong, nothing would invalidate the protection grift and other iffy G2A practices.
You're looking profoundly, suspiciously invested, here, and responding with vague accusations and dismissals rather than actual intercourse on the matter- one I'm NOT invested in.
Likewise, even if your last assessment is correct, you're not offering explanation, only vague accusation and dismissal.
All that does is reflect poorly on you.
Comment has been collapsed.
the fully explanation is above where you do believe that g2a sells something. this is enough to make me truly believe that you don't know how g2a works.
I recommend you buy something there someday just for curiosity. I do recommend you sell something there as well. believe me, your investment worth the exp. that you will get.
Comment has been collapsed.
Now, if you can invalidate the claims of all those articles and customers out there, and prove it isn't making illegal initial purchases, then by all means, let us know-
but that still doesn't change how it scams money from its users through 'protection subscriptions'- which are often illegal in the states (due to being, y'know, an old mob tactic :P).
Like I said, any other site does reimbursements for free, G2A locks you into a comparativly expensive subscription with no way out. It's ugly.
Besides, (supposedly), some keys have made it on G2A that weren't bundle keys, but actually stolen, and when asked to remove them, G2A declined.
Fact is, G2A has- according to the protection grift, and every article and negative comment so far- acted with nefarious intent throughout all of it.
Given that the only people to make unsubstantiated positive claims about them thus far have been proven to be G2A staff, and that not a single non G2A staff has offered actual positive support, you can understand why people disdain the site.
Comment has been collapsed.
you really do believe in what you say... again there's no argue with that. even if I show you otherwise you'll refuse to think on it. no matter how much is against any logic and it let any costumer totally unprotected, you do believe that steam or devs is like kings that do whatever they want. I'm a lawyer and I don't kindly ask steam to give back my stuff from whatever I get them. I just demand, they obey or return. If they don't, justice will gently stabilish some penalty to make it happend a little faster.
Comment has been collapsed.
And now you're making baseless accusations against the quality of my character, making strawman arguments wherein you ascribe traits to me rather than directly respond to the matters at hand, and then making unrelated hyperbolic assertions.
Even if the rest of what you say is true, which seems dubious from what you've presented, it only suggests that laws work very differently where you are- a matter we've already asserted as a possibility and given value to.
Meaning, again, you're trying to shift the conversation to meaningless, irrelevant topics.
Now, my first instinct is to mistrust someone behaving the way you are, but perhaps you've mistranslated something and are having a demanding day.
Also, I'm a brain surgeon, secret agent, chameleon breeder, stripper, nunchuck expert, and demolitions expert. True Story.
While my circumstances right now limit my awareness of the topic, I do come from a family with a background in law. Would you like to validate your off-hand assertion in some manner, or can we both agree it's irrelevant to north American law?
If G2A is legal and protected where you are, then by all means.
But exactly like trying to sell region-purchased keys to other nations, it's not generally considered legal.
Comment has been collapsed.
why are you taking this personaly? this talk is about how g2a works (which is not even what I was talking about on my first reply)
you just attacked me saying "you're looking profoundly, suspiciously invested, here, and responding with vague accusations and dismissals rather than actual intercourse on the matter- one I'm NOT invested in." and now you came with this "you're making baseless accusations against the quality of my character"?!?!? why do you drive this conversation to personal side?
Comment has been collapsed.
So instead of apologizing and then offering actual explanations, you try to turn it around on me yet again.
Unfortunately, there's no way for me to tell if there's a cultural and linguistic confusion here, but your conduct has thus come across as extremely negative: Consistently escalating, addressing things personally or shifting topics rather than directly addressing points being made, making flawed arguments and attempting to put all the blame on me, etc.
Well, I apologize for any confusions on my own end, but I think that's about all the free reign I can give to letting this matter resolve maturely and respectfully.
Comment has been collapsed.
you don't need to drive this conversation to personal side. a plain "I don't like you" or "the way you think" is fine by me. I'll not go against your believes. I apologize to not go further with this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Neither of those are true.
I'm pointing out you've made negative comments and ignored my points to dismiss me as a person instead, and you seem to be making a point of not acknowledging that.
This ISN'T a matter of personal interaction or personal beliefs, but of you ignoring a factual, non-personal debate to start making dismissive comments toward my character, instead.
"The majority believe X, and there is plenty of legal validation and news articles on the matter supporting this premise." "You're so wrong, you don't know what you're talking about, you don't even know how to think, this is totally not like this totally unrelated thing and that's somehow important!"
If you can't see why those things don't mesh up, this is unlikely to be the last difficult interaction you'll have, nevermind a potential challenge to being a successful lawyer.
I'm not intending anything personal- to the contrary, I'm trying to get the matter to resolve quickly one way or another.
At the moment, unfortunately, my opinion of your character is quite low, but that doesn't mean I'm assuming anything negative toward you. As I stated, SOME confusions could be easily explained, but the seeming pattern of dismissive and personally directed comments is concerning.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's not illegal but you have to ask yourself would you rather keep both (and keep playing drm-free version because you don't like steam or whatever) and let the devs make a living, or would you rather abuse the fact that they give you two copies for the price of one (or even for the little % price of regular copy) and take $$ away from those humble indie devs thus forcing them to starve to death or give up making cool indie games in favour of slavery in some corporation just so they could survive.
tl;dr you can give the keys but you'll kill indie devs this way
Comment has been collapsed.
I only ever buy those BECAUSE they have both, since humble store prices tend to be way more expensive [than steam sale, bundle, etc].
So I can't personally give you a good answer for that.
In the past, some developers would do online backup data copies for your hard copies, and you could theoretically view dual-copy purchases similarly;
However, there's a flaw in that: That system was designed to counter a risk, and also was offered with the assumption of family usage.
In the current system, Steam is not perceived to be a risk, and there's still the assumption of family usage for DRM-Free.
So it's.. a bit different.
Given that it's legally permissible to give away copies of games as a consumer (versus as a reseller, which is why G2A is so scummy), without restriction, it really all depends on your own perspectives on the matter.
Given that Humble doesn't note issues with it..
Well, before you get the wrong idea, I'm the type that doesn't pick up free steam games even if they offer trading cards, if I don't intend to play them. I pay what I can, and if I can get copies for friends or others, that's a positive for me, and encourages me to purchase.
As far as people deliberately abusing the system? I don't know.
But given that the developers/publishers have full control over the bundle format (Source: Humble Support), and no rules exist to counter dual-usage (in direct contrast to the ones existing prohibiting such for Humble's DRM-Free copies), one assumes the usage is well understood by the developers in question, aside from a few that rushed into their decision.
The fact is, I can't see it as anything BUT two copies, so for me it's just waste, and that bothers me.
Of course, if rules- enforceable or not- existed, I'd abide by those without hesitation, much like I already do with DRM-Free copies.
Again, as far as Humble Store, I dunno. But given how much they promote the "also includes drm-free!" "now with drm-free bonus!" element, once assumes they're familiar with the usage there, as well.
Similarly, Groupees staff is totally okay with people trading Steam keys off and keeping DRM-Free, so there's another site that supports the mainstream approach.
Conversely, you could look at it as how GOG lets you activate their DRM-Free versions with certain steam keys. You get one steam key there, but endless DRM-Free copies free (since GOG has no limitations on who you can give their games to).
In this, a 2-copy system is a bit less intense.
Moreover, if it was a GOG key and a Steam key- or itch.io and Steam, which is more common- would you be willing to use one, but not the other?
I'm really not sure where the lines are, they're so completely arbitrary, and contrary to gaming history, legality, and site presentation.
If there were lines, I'd abide by them- but then, I already don't abuse the system any, I just give away keys I wasn't ever going to use anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also worth noting that developers get funds from trading card sales, small as they may be, so it isn't as if they're not getting SOME recompense for you giving a steam key you'd never use away-
And for cheap discount games, that actually may be more beneficial to them than the purchase price!
Put another way- the people getting the games [in trade/gifts] likely aren't going to be making any big purchases anyway.
And one of the main reasons to do bundles is to get fast income- the other is for more market presence.
This accomplishes both.
Is it thus positive? Not necessarily.
Rather, there's simply no proof yet that it's negative for most developers.
And marketing can sometimes be a bit more complex than just buy/sell-
Remember when Bioshock infinite went free as a promotion?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's certainly a scummy thing to do. I'd have no respect for someone who did that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think an interesting counterexample to Humble is the infamous adult-but-censored genre on Steam. Those are typically available uncut outside of Steam at a higher price and usually provide Steam keys to the cut version. In that case you are literally buying a license for two different pieces of software, although the license agreement probably binds them together like how computer manufacturers provide OEM software that is not to be redistributed.
I don't think it's ethical either way. Humble support has explicitly frowned upon Steamgifts giveaways in the past though, so that's something for all of us to ponder.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder at the context/timing of that. A long time ago, they said don't give keys (split bundles), give whole bundle gift links only.
But then they added single game gift links, which feels like a tacit endorsement of SteamGifts and similar sites.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have since found what I was referring to, a statement by a member of support staff named "Peter" about five months ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, the intent for that was so that if you owned a game or parts of a game, you could give the other copies to people that still needed them, NOT so you could get one copy for yourself and one for others.
(Source: Humble Support, when I asked them about combined keys).
But then, even with combined keys, you still retain any DRM-free copies, so..
It's not really a relevant argument against the topic at hand, either.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry. I would have linked a reference if I could find it. Not terribly long ago (the past couple months?) someone made a forum topic that their Humble key for a giveaway they made was used when they hadn't used it, so they had contacted Humble support to get the situation sorted out. They had mentioned the giveaway/SteamGifts in their ticket and the support brought it up in their response and reminded them that keys were for personal use only.
Edit: Found it!
"The submission of Humble Bundle games through third party distributors like Steam Gifts is a violation of Humble Bundle's terms of service and thus disqualifies whomever receives the games from Humble Bundle support. Please be advised of this in the future."
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, sure, no, they've made that clear.
They'll help you with a key, but won't help someone you gave the key to.
What they're saying there is that their support service doesn't carry over when you gift games.
That's something true for most digital products with built-in-support, the support is tied to the purchasing account, not the end recipient.
That's not at all an argument for them being against Steamgifts, just that they don't support it.
Basically, covering their asses for things outside of their control, which is good.
Edit: There's actually nothing in the ToS about gifting/redistribution, that I can find =O
Comment has been collapsed.
For sure it's an excuse to withhold support, but seeing it again I have a different interpretation.
By relinquishing a key or gift link to SteamGifts, SteamGifts is acting as a distributor which would violate the terms of service. Semantically speaking, manually adding the winner and giving them the link/key would qualify as personal use (it would be no different than a secret santa).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, violating the ToS isn't illegal, it means they can take actions against your account [eg, from simply denying support, as they mentioned, to straight out cancelling/suspending your account].
And no, SG isn't a direct distributor, it's a randomized lottery function. It's in a weird grey area.
That aside, since the ToS (as I linked above) doesn't seem to actually have a section on the matter, I can't tell you what the circumstances and penalties involved are, since they don't actually seem to exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah. All it says is "your own private, non-commercial, personal use" which is very vague. While violating a ToS in and of itself is not a federal offense, it does open you up to the possibility of a private, civil suit. They put that part in big bold letters.
It is a weird grey area. Technically speaking SteamGifts does distribute the keys by proxy after users enter them into the site and a winner is selected, but in effect it's no different than manually delivering them to the user (which is also an option).
Comment has been collapsed.
While violating a ToS in and of itself is not a federal offense, it does open you up to the possibility of a private, civil suit.
You can't sue for something that's legal, though, and PERSONAL resale of property is legal.
I mean, they could try and sue Steamgifts, since that's the 'distributor', but they can't sue you, since there's no legal grounds for suing a consumer for using their purchase as they please [so long as the consumer doesn't engage in illegal activity, such as hacking the site/making illegal duplicates/etc- actual things listed in the ToS, by the way ;)].
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll make these my final words since I don't want to clutter up this thread too much. While I agree with you wholeheartedly, unfortunately you can sue for just about any reason if you find a lawyer willing to put their bar certification on the line. To be successful in that suit you'd have to prove damages, but unfortunately baseless lawsuits are at times used by wealthy plaintiffs solely to put defendants in a financial stranglehold by burying them in a long, drawn-out legal battle (and appealing if/when they lose) causing massive attorney fees for both parties which the aggressor willfully absorbs. The right to sell copyrighted work you purchase is known as the "First-sale doctrine". It was ruled in European court to apply to apply to software licenses, but to my knowledge the issue has never been brought forth to the supreme court in the United States.
Comment has been collapsed.
1,789 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by moonlightdriver
205 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by carlica
381 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by OsManiaC
17 Comments - Last post 39 minutes ago by Garcias
54 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by sensualshakti
1,015 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by sensualshakti
16,281 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Abletoburn
22 Comments - Last post 13 seconds ago by ashtwo
188 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by samwise84
15 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by adam1224
16,776 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by MjrPITA
796 Comments - Last post 23 minutes ago by JimLink
13 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by LosingMyEdge
9,150 Comments - Last post 26 minutes ago by ormax3
Some Humble Bundle games include both Steam keys and DRM-free copy. Now I'm pretty sure the intention is that only one copy at a time will be used, and by the same player. Still, do you think it's acceptable to give the Steam key and use the DRM-free copy, or is it abuse of the license? If the latter, does Humble actually expect people who gift the Steam key to be careful not to play the DRM-free copy unless they buy the game again?
L4+ giveaway to make you happy :-)
Comment has been collapsed.