As i wanted to give 2 steam licenses away to my son in law that was impossible it seems. There for i stopped buying anything via Steam. Alas that also involves TSW. Sorry guys. PS Steam/Valve policy is against the law: https://wccftech.com/steam-resell-games-french-court/
OK. Are you French? Because that was a French court...And if you're NOT French, then it would seem you're just cherry picking ruling that you like, because German courts found the issue differently, and determined that you do NOT have the right to transfer licenses to Steam games. Regardless, that French ruling was from 2019, Valve appealed it and the initial ruling was stayed (so it's not in effect) until the appeal is resolved, which it hasn't been. So even if you WERE French, that court case is still unresolved and there is no judgement in effect. But hey. You do you. If you want to stop playing games you enjoy because you think you should have the right to resell a software license...alright. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/german-court-rules-against-rights-to-resell-steam-games
Also said French case was appealed, and I assume judging by the lack of updates it's probably still in that process, so we don't really have a solid answer in France till they rule it.
Standard EULA for almost everything says "non-transferable". You pay for one license, that means one person can use it.
You could just buy it for your son-in-law as a gift on Steam (of course, assuming he has a Steam account). Am I missing something?
I think it was more like "I've played with, it now I'm bored with it and want to pass it on to my son in law. I could do that with a pair of socks, why can't I do it with a software license?"
Think of it like this. You Jack o'Track invest time and money in developing software that you want to sell. Someone buys that software and then distributes to friends and family for free. Then they all start selling copies undercutting your price thus putting you out of business. So that is why Steam don't allow you to redistribute their produce.
Yes, this threads gone in a few different directions. The OP doesn't want to share the licenses between multiple people, just to pass the license around (like a signal block token, if you like). The problem with this it seems to me is, imagine that someone buys an add-on, uses it for 3 months and then passes it on to someone else. They use it for 3 months, then pass it on again, and this goes on for a couple of years. After 2 years, 8 people will have used it and only 1 payment will have been made for it. This is different from socks because socks wear out when you use them which is part of the reason why socks don't get shared in this way. Every time the DLC License gets passed on, a brand new version of it will be installed by the new user.
> The problem with this it seems to me is, . . . . . Why would that be a problem ? That is how is goes with all stuff in life. Books, records, computers, pizzas, airplanes, land, houses, movie ticket . . . you buy it and can give it away to someone else. Works perfectly and no one seems to think it is a problem
Apples and oranges comparing houses and other physical objects to software. Software can be copied and redistributed. You cannot sell you car again once you've sold it.
All of those are physical things which get imprinted by usage. I'm no licensing expert but that's an obvious difference to me. A second hand book won't be brand-new, it'll be creased and smudged and maybe torn in places. DLC on the other hand would be the same, no matter how many previous owners had "driven it like they stole it".
Cat: I probably phrased it badly, sorry. I was trying to say that if you buy a second-hand book then you'd expect it to be imperfect. However the second-hand DLC would be the same as if you'd bought it new. edit: Imagine there was a mechanism for me to give you some of the add-ons that I have. If I give you a steam train, it won't have any dents in it, just because I used to own it.
Different software licenses allow and disallow this type of sharing based on their specific terms. Games are pretty damn near universally barred from having their license transferred. Microsoft Windows, on the other hand, does allow for ownership transfer depending on the situation. That said, being able to transfer a software license is more the exception than the rule for as long as software licenses have been a thing, which goes back at least a few decades now.
I STATED CLEARLY GIVE AWAY, the steam licenses. Not selling. Never even used them really, only activated. Later I bought these licenses again NEW not via steam, as i wanted to get rid of Steam as much as possible.
It doesn't matter whether you sell them or give them away. What is to stop your son then giving or even selling it to all his friends and then all his friends doing the same? Steam would soon be out of business. Surely you can see the logic in that.
Are you sure ? I assume Jack wants to give it away, not give it away AND keep it himself as well. In normal live this is possible. It is complete nonsense , in my opinion, that companies make excuses that their situation is special and different.
The OP did not mention that he had bought the licences for his son. I and others assumed he had used the licence and wanted to redistribute it to his son.
OP means "Original Poster" or the person who formed this post to begin with And the terms of use state clearly that they're non-transferable...
Have you considered family sharing? That should let him play your stuff, though you also can't play anything during that time. As soon as you launch something, he has to quickly save what he's doing before he's removed from his game.
Indeed, and that is what is being discussed. The fact that is is in the Terms Of Use does not mean it is correct / legal / right / normal / good / decent / acceptable.
And that seems to be against EU laws: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf
The old saying. "The law is an a$$." Jack. You could take Steam to court over this, good luck with that. Would have saved yourself a lot of bother using the Steam Gift route as Cameron's Gaming suggested.
Then take Steam (and every other software company) to court to see if your ten pound license can be transferred. Personally I would have ruled against the Germany company as proffiteering and reselling of ANYTHING should be banned by a third party StubHub be damned
Family sharing seems only possible on ONE computer, i can see the logic there. But re-sale or giving away means there is only ONE new user licensed. An EU court ruling from 2012 already states clearly that Steam, Dovetail, and a lot of other digital goods companies should allow this. https://curia.europa.eu/.../pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf. A lot of others do it right and have been doing this. The moral might be: don't buy anything anymore on Steam or other software companies that don't obey the law today.
The moral is read the EULA and if you disagree don't spend your money. The consumer has responsibilities as well as rights
Overhere a computer/phone blog bought a new phone, subscribed to Gmail, installed 15 famous apps (like Facebook messenger and such) and counted pages of text they had to agree with to start using the phone , the phone provider, the pre installed apps, and 15 additional apps. As you know those eula pages refer to other pages refer to other pages refer to . . . .. After converting all to PDF it came to over 5000 A4 (normal letter size) pages. Companies are abusing the system and being dishonest, they abuse their power , provide products that are faulty and that only last a few years. they have a ton tricks to make billions and hardly pay any tax. It might all be legal. But the fact that one is operating within the law does not mean one is a good, honest and sincere person !
Oh, no disagreement, and add in that governments prefer to enhance employment figures by allowing those companies to pay almost no tex so long as they employ people... Its why Costa coffee, amazon, IBM, Microsoft etc pay less than 0.1% of turnover in tax in the UK
I’d heard of something like that: one analyst said if the average person read the EULAs they typically come across, it would take them six months. This is as good an opportunity as any, as I’ve been meaning to do it, to complement Armstrong Powerhouse on a EULA that consists of no more than half a dozen lines of text, that fit entirely in the dialogue box!
But I don't have 30 seconds to read six lines of text, I want to play NOW. But yes, I know some EULAs are literally all-day reading. It's amazing how every company wants to waste your time so you can't even use the product. Want hilarious? Some video games FORCE YOU TO CLICK THROUGH EVERY PAGE OF A 42 PAGE ON-SCREEN EULA BEFORE YOU CAN PLAY THE GAME. That's a sure sign there's something wrong with your game...
Well, for now i made up my mind in regards of Steam (and thus Dovetail Games). I am not buying anything fancy and expensive anymore from now on unless it's at a real dump price. IMO it's an EU unlawful business in regards of consumers rights, almost like the Mafia behaved in the 30-ies. Forcing bar owners to buy their bootleg alcohol to fulfill the wishes of their addicted clients.
I bet they're quaking right now. Shaking, they try their best to say their last words... "Jack... He's... He's... Talking about us... *dramatic music intensifies* On the... Dovetail Forums..."
Good luck with that Jack. As AP, BMG and other TS payware companies have EULAs you won't be buying anything then.
Well it is 2021 and tech companies might have sensitive feefees and need a safe space to hold a meeting about it! I admire Jack's sentiment. It was honourable and wasn't setting sail on the piracy galleon. It is a shame that EULA's have taken the route they have. It has killed any "second hand" market, although perhaps that was the plan all along?
Developers very often do not like seeing other people gain notoriety by making changes to products they create. I mean, some could argue that Armstrong Powerhouse is taking advantage of DTG by putting out competing products. Instead of getting the guy to work for them and improve the game directly, they let people go to him instead. And it means DTG has less incentive to work on the game. If it ever gets removed from sale, or if the format is changed in any new version of the game (I know, unlikely to even get one), AP's market will indeed be very small and almost non-existent in the future as everyone jumps ship to other titles.
A fair argument, but I'd hardly think tpd such as AP are gaining notoriety, that implies being seen in a bad light. Perhaps DTG don't like AP gaining popularity? Is that what you meant? I'm not trying to correct any wording, just trying to understand. I do plenty of flight simming (on the old FSX:SE, not the newMSFS) and there are a legion of tpds all over the flight sim genre. I think what I'm trying to say is that whilst devs continue to work on their products, having tpds mod stuff should not be a disincentive as such.
Yes, that's what I was going for. The fact they have their own heavy customer base yet don't release new products onto Steam means DTG doesn't get its 30% cut from it and can't have them involved in the regular (and frequent) sales on Steam to try to attract more purchases at lower prices. Which would reduce what AP gets even more. So I can understand why they decided to isolate their merchandise after a few came to Steam early. Even moreso because some liveries cannot be made available on Steam. So it's a guess, but I think their isolating themselves and selling branded content DTG itself cannot sell might get under DTG's skin. Same with anyone selling BNSF, honestly.