Concerning 2nd hand copies & CD key.

I just got a copy of Gal Civ off eBay. For the cynical here :) no really. Go to eBay and search, it is happening.

On trying to download the patch, and entering the CD key (with all combinations) , I get the message: 'Invalid CD key'

I'm guessing the previous owner registered which is locking me out. Can ownership be transferred to me or do I have to: a) buy a new, new copy :sniff!: or b) try a *coughCD hack cough* :notsure:

745 views 18 replies
Reply #1 Top
If you're entering your email address along with the CD key, then what is happening is that you're catching that email protection from the site. You only have a couple choices here:

1) Go back to the original owner and have him switch the email address attached to the CD-key to your email address of your chosing

2) Ask the owner for the password to the GalCiv account he uses and then change your profile information over that way

Unfortunately, while the purchase is legal, Stardock isn't going to provide too much help since this is a second hand purchase (they receive nothing as a result of the purchase).

I'd hope you would stay clear of the CD hack. If you attempted such a hack, you would not be able to post metaverse scores or download the patches. The CD hack would seem irrelevent anyhow since the computer does *not* require the CD in order to run.

Hope this helps a little
SeanB
Reply #2 Top
First: your coughHACKcough idea is guaranteed to fail, since whatever key you use has to be verified on the Stardock server end and it knows what keys were actually issued.

Second: what needs to happen is whoever you bought it from MUST transfer his Stardock account to you by giving you the email address he registered with & his stardock account password. With that, you can change the nick, email, and password from the 'edit account' on wincustomize.com after you log in there with this guy's info.

If by some chance he owns other Stardock software, this is not an option and you should demand your money back as there is literally nothing you can do at that point. Stardock and Strategy First have made it clear that they will not bother to transfer ownership so if this guy can't give you access to his account, you have a CD but no license, nor legally or technically any right to one, either.
Reply #3 Top
This also leads to the fact that as GC does not require the CD to play, there is nothing at all stopping the seller from continuing to play now on an essentially 'free' game since he sold the CD (getting his money back) to you but still has the license... so unless he's willing to give you the account too, then sorry buddy but you got screwed...
Reply #4 Top
I don't consider the copy protection of galciv very good... It's kinda non-existant if you don't care about waiting for standalone patches or the metaverse but on the other hand it makes it hard to change the owner of that game.

However, I, as someone, who purchased the game and indeed want's to keep it like it very much, that I don't need the CD-Rom to play and how the account on this board, in SDC and the metaverse is managed!

If I was StarDock, i'd think about no longer making standalone patches even if this pissed some of the legal buyers off, it would indeed help to reduce piracy! I don't see any advantage in standalone patches... With SDC I need exactly 4 klicks and only a small amount of time to get my version updated.
Reply #5 Top
Well, unless Strat First is letting people download the standalones without a SN#, it's moot either way. You can't even download the standalones from Stardock without a valid SN#.

Stardock's copy protection is the best in the industry: they don't hassle the legit owner of the license and they give the pirate actual incentive to buy a legit copy. Any other form of CP is a complete and utter joke.
Reply #6 Top
Yeah in testiment to SD, i tried a friend's copy before I bought it. I thought the game very interesting plus with the awesome support and new versions and metaverse posting, well worth the $40. First game I've bought in a year or two.
Reply #7 Top
Thank for the replies.

I'll fire off an email to the ex-owner for the stardock code. But I'm not hopeful as he did state that it was the CD and booklet only, does the retail version come a game manual as well? I guess he kept his but I was going to download this anyway.

Bugger >:(

However the game seems to play well without the patch and I've just downloaded the Moo3 patch so I have enough to keep me amused for a while. :)
Reply #8 Top
But I'm not hopeful as he did state that it was the CD and booklet only, does the retail version come a game manual as well?
End of quote


If you purchased a physical copy direct from Stardock all you got was the CD in a DVD case and quick start type pamphlet, no manual.

The full retail version distributed by Strategy First did have the not-so-hot manual included.
Reply #9 Top
Well, in that case, I would NEVER purchase GalCiv second hand. Anyway, no problem there as I got it already... ;p

I think Stardock's anti-copy plans worked...
Reply #10 Top
Well, in that case, I would NEVER purchase GalCiv second hand. Anyway, no problem there as I got it already...
End of quote


Actually, you should never purchase a second hand game that uses a CD-key. While the old CD key may not be in use, you have no way to know if the seller has completely honored the agreement by destroying his copies of the key.

You also don't know if the key has been tainted (i.e. the key was used with a cheat...)
Reply #11 Top
Re: reply #10

That depends on the game and the game company.

If it's a game you don't plan on playing multiplayer and patches are freely distributed then it makes little difference from your end.

If it's with a game company like Blizzard, again, not really an issue even if multiplayer is your intent. Blizzard doesn't care how many B.net accounts are set up with a single CD key just so long as no two people with the same key try to log in at the same time. Even if that happens (i.e. the bastich you bought it from made a working copy), Blizzard will actually go to the trouble to verify who is the rightful owner of the actual CDs, then cancel the old key and issue a new one.

It's a matter of doing the research first and not blindly assuming you can just buy 2nd hand copies.
Reply #12 Top
Good point CM. Thanks for the heads-up!
Reply #13 Top
Hey, is it just me or did the thread title disappear? :notsure:

~SDC~
Reply #14 Top
I think the previous owner made an archive copy off of SDCentral and is now happy that he or she got a great game for 10$-20$.
Reply #15 Top
Vitreous Humor,

Ebay are very good on dealing with fraud, so if you feel that the seller mis-sold you something or mis-led you into thinking you were buying everything (including the rights to the CD Key) then you could complain to them and they would cancel the trade. They also have dispute resolving services and most credit cards also have protection. You do have legal rights, so use them if you feel you've been cheated. Do try contacting the seller first though, it could be an honest oversight!

paul.

~SDC~
Reply #16 Top
Does anyone have the latest patch laying so we can ftp a copy?

I have a full version and a CD Key but I don't want to register with Stardock it since I may want to sell the game later. A key for a patch? what BS.

No, I don't have a hacked version - I just hate restrictive policies like this. Here's my key: DN-1372.... you can guess the rest.

Reply #17 Top
I personally don't mind the policy. Its not that terribly restrictive either. You don't need a stardock account. And why should stardock let any old person download a copy of the patch? I personally enjoy this system over being forced to have a the CD-Rom in my computer just to verify copy protection.
Reply #18 Top
Yep, sorry T_K, but I wouldn't provide a copy of this patch to anyone. If being asked to provide your sn# to update is such a hardship compared to assinine cd requirements in your book, there are plenty of games out there that go that route (and then have no-cd .exes available a day after every patch).

I like what Stardock has done and while I don't necessarily agree with preventing the transfer of license, I support their right to say *they* get to make money off of *their* software.