Already gave a couple of the keys to a family member. Breathe in. Breathe out. It's going to be all right. I give away plenty of games. I'm not going to stop. Breathe in. Breathe out. We'll make it through this together.
Comment has been collapsed.
I still don't think it is acceptable. Indie Gala terms of service state you shouldn't expose directly or indirectly your download page. Providing someone with a separate steam key, not a full gift url, is exposing the download page indirectly in my book.
Not that people particularly care, but for official giveaway that should still be a no-no imho. Just make a full giftable url gala giveaway huh?
Comment has been collapsed.
Have you ever read a TOS before? lets go ahead and look at the lines, shall we?
Once you make a purchase, you should receive a unique game download page. You shall not, directly or indirectly, disclose the unique URL for your download page to anyone else or use anyone else's download page. You are solely and entirely responsible for all activities that occur on your download page. INDIEGALA shall not be responsible for any losses arising out of the unauthorized use of your download page. That means that you can't go around giving out your URL and then get a new one when someone uses all of your keys. And you can't go around giving out the URL to anyone else's download page for people to swipe the keys off of. That's why it says you shouldn't directly or indirectly disclose the URL for the page, not the information on the page itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then again, it also says "The Service is only for sales of products or product rights (collectively, "Products") to end user customers for their personal, non-commercial use." Transferring the product rights or the keys to a third party is hardly a "personal" use (although it may very well be non-commercial). So I think the bundle organizers have expressed their wishes fairly clearly in the ToS; also, why else would there be a "buy the bundle as a gift" option.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd consider giving a gift a fairly personal use. And I'm pretty sure they knew it was coming when I bought more than one.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd consider giving a gift a fairly personal use.
As long as you can make sure the recipient does not use it themselves? Because in that case, how exactly would a completely different person (one you most likely don't even know) playing the game count as you "personally using" it?
(The fact that you can anticipate someone not following the rules you laid out does not give them the permission to do so.)
Comment has been collapsed.
How about me checking a box saying I was buying gifts? Was that too tough a code to crack as well? The fact that it doesn't say that I can't do it in the "restrictions" paragraph, where such a limitation would be found?
You're misinterpreting a clause from the wrong area of the contract to try to magically make something you don't like into something "wrong". Indie gala has never been like HiB, and has always been the exception to the "morally questionable" rule. How about you relax and let someone win my game without complaint?
Comment has been collapsed.
Indie gala has never been like HiB
Look at the differences between the ToS of Indie Gala (left) and HIB (right). Basically, there are none.
If you say "giving away Indie Gala keys is okay according to my interpretation of Indie Gala ToS", shouldn't you also say "giving away HIB keys is okay according to my interpretation of HIB ToS, because they are basically identical"? Yet you do not. Why? Does adding DRM-free versions in the case of HIB change something about the way the keys can be handled? Or does it merely make it more apparent that they shouldn't be transferred?
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks Zoth, I was looking for where it was stated, but it took me forever. I really appreciate the assist.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you are saying that HIB ToS (basically identical to Indie Gala ToS) do allow giving of keys away, and the only reason you should not do it is because of this FAQ article, right?
What if people agree to the ToS (which is necessary to purchase the bundle), but do not read FAQ (which is not necessary to purchase the bundle)? Are they allowed to give HIB keys to third parties, according to your interpretation?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I decided your approach was novel, so I tried a new one myself. I asked them. We'll see what kind of reply I get.
Comment has been collapsed.
No it isn't. In fact, the reason Gala didn't switch to the "one key multiple games" system like Humble Bundle did was explicitly so you can part them out.
Quite honestly, Humble Bundle's policy of "if you already own a game, oh well, fuck you" is a ripoff and a slap in the face of consumer rights. If I legally purchase a second copy of a game I already own, why can't I give that copy to someone else? Only because they say not to? If Humble put "Please go die in a fire" in their FAQ, I wouldn't be legally obligated to die in a fire just for purchasing their product.
All Humble wants is to prevent people making multiple copies of a game - such as by selling their Steam key and keeping the DRM-free links, for example, thus turning one copy into two or more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wrong, Steam does not give you the extra games as a giftable copy in your inventory. Its not their fault if they dont do that. Also, you buy the whole bundle which is why it is perfeclty fine to have 1 key for them all. Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not Humble's fault Steam doesn't give you spare copies, it's Humble's fault that Humble took the steps to register entire bundles with Steam as one item so that that would occur. They didn't always do that and it's a perfectly legitimate criticism to complain that they do now. No other bundle does it, though Royale does it for Desura (Royale is, IIRC, owned by Desura, so that makes some sense).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, maybe you'll make your own giveaway site. With blackjack. And hookers. I'm sure the person who wins this game will be all pissed at me for my "shitty bundle games". It's not exactly like you've given skyrim away, is it.
Comment has been collapsed.
LoL...and you did not think that the most persons just want to give away theyre fucking keys? Damn, i shit on this stupid contributor bullshit...it was way better before that system came...damn, so much stupid Contributor whiners...for real, you all suck like hell! Let them give away that stupid games and stop crying like a little bitch...
Comment has been collapsed.
Random Warning: German Text incoming!
Habe ich kein Problem mit, ausblenden lassen mit dem genialen Script und gut ist. Aber mal ganz ehrlich, dieses geweine geht mir tierisch auf den Sack...man sieht nur noch Flame, Flame, Flame...cg sollte teile des Scripts direkt in die Seite einbauen und gut ist...dann könnte jeder ohne Probleme die Spiele Filtern...ich sehe nur ganz wenige Giveaways da alles ausgeblendet wird was ich besitze und was ich nicht will kommt auf die Ignore Liste^^...
Comment has been collapsed.
Gave that away, too. Just because you don't want it, that doesn't mean someone out there isn't totally jazzed to see it. What's the difference between giving away a 35 dollar game 100 people would like and a 5 dollar game 10000 people would like? Either way you're only going to make 1 person happy, I just saved the train lover 35 bucks instead of saving the randomfps lover 5 bucks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, but calling them "shitty" is not a real argument.
Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be given away. As of this post OP's giveaway has 126 entries - and that's 126 different people who want the game. So whose opinion is worth more, one person or 126's?
Both of these giveaways I made after bundle keys were allowed. Both were bundle keys. In fact, one of them was the same game as OP. Both of them got over 550 entries. So as I see it, people are giving away games that significant numbers of people want. What makes it "shitty"?
Comment has been collapsed.
Read my post again, I said right now. Most of the bundle giveaways atm are from the recent indie gala bundle and they are not gifting the whole bundle, most of them are gifting all the games individual and why? They want to get more contrib value. (Which ofcourse doesnt work the same way it did before they werent allowed)
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, it's not like these games are replacing the games you want to see on the site. These are leftover keys, that now somebody will be able to enjoy. It's not like I said, "Hmm, I think I'll give away Battlefield #whatever today. Let me go buy that. OH WAIT! I have a TRAUMA key here that I can give away instead. Guess I'll skip the AAA title since I can give a 'shitty' game I already have!"
So, that being said, if you're not seeing games you want, I suggest you either dig deeper, or open your effing wallet and make the magic happen yourself. I'm just over here giving someone a free game.
Comment has been collapsed.
So if it doesn't work anymore...why is that bad?
Anyway, I think you're being astoundingly presumptious to assume that everyone giving away bundle games is doing so for malicious reasons. I realize this may be hard to comprehend, but it's also possible that some of these people are trying to give away gifts on Steamgifts. I, for example, usually own one or two of any given Gala bundle, and some of their bundles include games I just plain won't play and therefore don't really want or need in my library. If I give those games away, I'm not trying to exploit anything, just give out keys that will otherwise go unused.
Why do you assume all of those giveaways are meant for some exploitative reason?
Comment has been collapsed.
(If you want, you can see my reply to AdmiralAndrew's "keys that were waiting for a chance to be given away" below.)
Comment has been collapsed.
See what I literally just said about how it's presumptious to assume that everyone giving away bundle games is doing so for malicious reasons.
Look at it this way - other than pissing off the epeen society and their exclusive little club, what exactly is the problem with people giving away bundled games? I assume, given that these giveaways get hundreds of entries, that there are people who don't own these games and want them.
And yet, there are people who are "against" giving away these games that, as demonstrated above, people really want. There are people on this site who are "against" giving away games because the sanctity of their contributor value is more important than giving away gifts on Steam on a site called Steamgifts. Just take a step back and consider that for a moment.
And let's face it, the vast majority of giveaways on this site were gotten on sale anyway. Don't take my word for it, just watch how this site explodes every Summer and Christmas sale. Contributor values are entirely arbitrary scores that for the majority of us are not even close to aligned with our actual expenditures.
Comment has been collapsed.
The 2nd and 3rd paragraph can be readily dismissed by pointing out that even sites such as piratebay have thousands of users: getting what you want does not necessarily make the one giving it a good person, if they break rules and screw other people (bundle organizers and developers) while doing it.
The 4th paragraph doesn't say "bundlers don't want more contributor value", as you would seem to like, but rather "others want more contributor value too". Which is something I don't need to be arguing with.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, but that's just not a reasonable argument. There is no rule being broken. And I don't see how someone is "screwing" bundle organizers by buying their product. Point is, this site is about giving away games. It's called Steamgifts for a reason.
And my point was that it's silly to attack people for "exploiting" their contributor scores when said score can easily be increased for less than twenty cents on the dollar, totally aboveboard. In fact, it's worse than silly, it was actively harming the site and community when the sanctity of contributor scores became more important than giving away games.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not how assumptions and implications in first-order logic work. If somebody is breaking rules by giving you something, then your being happy doesn't make it okay. That's what I said, and you are trying to disagree with it by pointing out things that do not contradict it. Whether or not some rules are being broken, that is a question an answer to which might be provided by the bundle organizers (and, seeing some arguments listed below, even for them, it might be difficult to find the correct one).
Comment has been collapsed.
"If somebody is breaking rules..." "There is no rule being broken."
I don't see what isn't contradictory about that. And as an aside, claiming something such as "people are screwing bundle organizers", then weaseling out of it with formal language about first-order logic is kind of rude. Stand by your word or don't give it.
And yes, saying that these people are only trying to boost their arbitrary score (which WAS claimed, by multiple people, including the post that started this particular line of discussion) is attacking them. And yes, I will reply here, because I'm not going to jump through the hoops of trying to find other posts just to say the same thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
(Sorry, but I can't go simpler than "--->if<--- you do something wrong (do something good/are a camel), --->then<--- you shouldn't be rewarded (shouldn't be punished/will probably survive a week in a desert)". First-order logic is not something alien and artificially contrived, it is a tool that can be effectively used to understand the world and people around. Whether or not that certain something is wrong (is good/you are a camel) is the matter of debate, answering of which has now been delegated to Indie Gala support. The whole implication itself, however, stands.)
Comment has been collapsed.
If you can't go simpler than "how assumptions and implications in first-order logic work", then I feel very, very sorry for you. Look, I'm not saying I don't understand what you said. Just to be clear, it's not the concepts of logic I'm not understanding. I'm saying I don't understand why you're bothering with the overly formal language. This isn't a courtroom or a debate club.
And you never did answer my question. How are people "screwing" bundle organizers by buying their product? Whether or not they specifically allow individual key giveaways or not, and I still hold that at least Gala and Groupees have supported it in the past, how are they "screwed" by people buying the product they have on sale, and giving away spare copies of games they already own?
I understand the position from Humble and Royale, both of whom come with multiple copies of a single game (such as Steam, Desura, and/or DRM-free copies) with the expectation that they all be used by a single individual - but that logic doesn't apply to, say, Groupees and Gala, as most of their bundles are exclusively Steam keys.
You claim that people who give away bundle keys they aren't going to use themselves are "screwing" bundle developers, but you have repeatedly avoided the question as to why you made that claim. All you've done is made the unsupported assertion that it is bad, and against the rules. I reply with the counter-assertion that it is good, and the fact that it is not against the rules.
Now please drop the high school debate class, and answer the question: How is giving away a legally-purchased spare copy of a game I already own "screwing" anyone?
Comment has been collapsed.
1)
In this branch of the discussion, I really am not claiming that anybody is screwing anyone. If you scroll high enough, you will see that this is all only to reject your usage of the "...giving away gifts on Steam on a site called Steamgifts..." argument to indiscriminately praise the bundlers, i.e., I am saying that "ends do not justify the means". Whether or not the means are good or bad is another point, one that I did not intend to discuss here (but instead in another part of the discussion, below). But be the means good or bad, you cannot justify them by saying "look, it made some people happy".
2)
If I were to say that somebody indeed is screwing the organizers or devs, then I would speak about them not respecting the ToS. And that alone should be reason enough, period. If you agree with some terms I lay out for you, and then you break them, you are "screwing me" (and, indirectly, all who do comply with such terms). (Please bear in mind that this is all under the assumption that ToS are actually being broken here; if they are not, which might be answered by the organizers, then of course there is no "screwing" going on, and I might even happily start giving bundle keys myself, because again, I see no problem with this other than that it is possibly against the bundle rules, which I do not want to be broken, oh, I'm getting so tired of repeating it all over and over again.)
By the way, if you want to go into a more hypothetical, debate-club area (which should not be even necessary), then you can try the elusive and popular concept of "lost sales". By giving someone a game, instead of letting it rot in your library or other limbo, you are effectively preventing that person from ever buying the game with their own money. I suppose that is one of the reasons the games come in bundles. The organizers, I guess, prefer you paying $1 for 5 games (some of which you might not want), rather than $0.2 for one. The recent Groupees "build a bundle", with its "3 games at least", seems to support this.
Comment has been collapsed.
1: So what you're saying is you were simply pointing out a way in which my argument could be dismissed, without actually stating that that reasoning was correct in your opinion. In which case, you're still avoiding the point, you're just changing what point you've avoided. So here's the question you never answered: "Look at it this way - other than pissing off the epeen society and their exclusive little club, what exactly is the problem with people giving away bundled games?" And for that...:
2: But it's not a lost sale. If I buy a copy of, say, Trauma or Beat Hazard, and give it to someone else, then that someone else would presumably not then go buy a copy for themselves, but the copy has already been purchased. There is no lost sale. In fact, there's a (possible) gained sale, because there is no guarantee that the winner who received the title would have otherwise bought it. This is evidenced by the fact that the people who enter giveaways for these bundle games clearly didn't buy the bundle when it was available - if they did, they'd already own the game, and thus they couldn't enter the giveaway!
Firstly, you're falling into the same fallacy that the RIAA/MPAA use when arguing against internet piracy. While I believe there is a percentage of lost sales from piracy, it's not 100% and it's blatantly not accurate to assume that it is. So too it is from here: How can you say that because someone won a game they wanted here, that translates to a lost sale? Secondly, the bundles are limited-time offers! There can be no lost sale if the deal is no longer up for sale!
[Edited: Indie Gala's support has explicitly confirmed that they allow individual keys given away as gifts, so the several paragraphs explaining why they would allow it are unnecessary and have been edited out]
Also note that just one month ago the European Union (of which Italy is a member, where Indie Gala is based) reaffirmed the right of first sale as applies to digital software, so long as the original owner would no longer have access to that copy (that is, no additional copy was made). Steam keys fit the bill there perfectly (if someone else uses a key, you can no longer use it, and vice versa) - so if you do believe something in Gala's terms of service forbids the redistribution of unused Steam keys, then their ToS is actually in violation of laws applicable to their country and therefore non-enforceable anyway. As you've repeatedly pointed out, Gala and HIB have nearly identical ToSes (as do some others; their ToSes are fairly standard wording), and I really think the simpler interpretation is that "personal use" does not exclude transferring ownership of an individual registration key. The 'rule' barring that behavior from Royale and Humble comes from different posted communication from their respective companies; namely, their FAQs.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure what's more annoying: Your response essentially saying "You're right, but only by luck," or your response being an edit to your post rather than a reply that shows up in the View Replies page, or the fact that your text is so damn small I have to zoom in repeatedly to read it. Seriously, why are you doing that?
And I'll remind you that I've said, repeatedly, before this, that Indie Gala was fine with it, an answer you refused to heed both from myself and from others until Gala support had to tell you the same thing themselves in person. It was not a "guess". I knew they were alright with it and that's exactly what I have always said. My last post had several paragraphs explaining why they would, should, and would be legally compelled to allow it, but I edited it out as unnecessary once it was clear that I was right.
Comment has been collapsed.
But it's not even a problem at all.
How did this site come to the conclusion that more giveaways is somehow a problem?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd like to think it isn't. I'd like to think what we're seeing here is the release of a ton of bundle keys that were waiting for a chance to be given away... not because of some attempt to " scam the system" but because the purchasers just want someone to put them to use. If that's true, then yes, the numbers will go down, but they'll always be there, as people add keys from extra games with each new bundle purchase.
Comment has been collapsed.
keys that were waiting for a chance to be given away
You mean "keys that were waiting for a chance to be counted towards the contributor value (albeit partially limited)". Nothing has changed in the bundle ToS, so if people saw no problem with that, they could have been giving them away in forums, or via random.org. SG administration wasn't punishing anyone for doing that -- if the only thing the bundlers seek is to give gifts and cause joy, they could have been giving the keys away for ages. (I'm not saying that is an altogether bad motive, but people shouldn't deny it.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe I don't want to give my keys to the first scrape script or hypercaffinated ninja that sees my topic. Maybe I want to make it fair. Maybe I had a problem with the hypocrisy of saying it wasn't good for proper giveaways, but fine in the forums and the chat (out of the public eye). Maybe I want to make rediculous descriptions and see who actually reads them.
Maybe it's my damn business, and now it's a freaking holiday.
Still waiting to hear from gala support, btw. If they are cool with it, then your point is moot from top to bottom.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't go much fairer or non-ninja-able than random.org which I suggested. Or itstoohard, if you want a winner who reads ridiculous descriptions. (Didn't really understand that part about "not good for proper giveaways".)
(This particular point has nothing to do with this breaking ToS or not, this is about the statement "bundlers only want to share, don't care about the contributor value, and needed the rule change to start gifting", which I sincerely doubt. Also, Indie Gala represents only a certain fraction of bundle giveaways, and asking other bundles with similar ToS might be interesting as well. For example, consider a hypothetical scenario: "Dear HIB, considering your ToS is identical to Indie Gala ToS, and I can gift their keys, as confirmed by their support, how do you explain that I cannot gift yours?")
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally making an itstohard is not something I would want to do...and random.org gets annoying when people double post and then you have to calculate that and I hate doing anything like that....
Fine for some people that want to deal with that though...
Comment has been collapsed.
And why should we expect people to do that? Why should we expect that people treat a list of well over a hundred titles as untouchable?
Giving away keys in the forums is often rather thankless. It's far too frequently some ninja who steals it - and I'd like to remind the thread that a ninja is more than just someone who nabs a key really vast. They're called ninjas because they do so invisibly - that is, they don't bother to say that they redeemed the key successfully, let alone give thanks.
Edit: Also, >greentext
Comment has been collapsed.
I have given keys away on the forum because I followed the rules, I had one issue with this, which was the whole Ninja thing, it didn't seem super fair(Hell pages even load slower for some people). I have a couple keys left that I didn't give away on the forums, its allowed now so I will make a giveaway or two, now at least people have a fair chance. I don't give a crap about the contributer value, they can mark it all down to 0 right now...maybe they should? I thought thats what was done but I guess I read it wrong(Read it again, there is a 25 limit I think) since my last giveaway yielded me points...
Solution for people that don't want abusers in the contributer gifts, just make it 25 dollars and up instead of the 1 cents I see so often.
The thing is this site and any site like it will always have people exploiting the system, only so much you can do...
Comment has been collapsed.
Solution for people that don't want abusers in the contributer gifts, just make it 25 dollars and up instead of the 1 cents I see so often.
Doesn't work that way. Currently, this would disqualify sub-$25 non-bundlers, while allowing some bundlers in, depending on the rest of their contributions. (With enough non-bundle contributions, all your bundle contributions can be counted with their full store value.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah guess that would be unfair...didn't think that much about it, was off the top of my head.
Well guess it comes down to the whole, people will always find a way to exploit comment I made...sad though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe it should come down to nothing. As it is right now, if you bundle your ass off, you'll see a 20% boost in contibutor value on your non bundle games. That's it. Is that exploitable? Depends on your definition, I guess.
So what if someone paid $1 for a bundle that they can part out for 70 bucks in contributor value. To be able to claim that full $70 bucks, they will have given $350 in non bundle games. Maybe I'm not being realistic, but I think someone who gives $350 bucks in non-bundle games can have a 20% boost to their score if they've made 9-10 extra people winners. I really don't care. They've already shown that they're willing to walk the walk, so why dog them out? It just doesn't make sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
And how do you view the fact that a rule-obeying person who gives $350 bucks in non-bundle games can not have such 20% boost to their score for $1 (and can not make 9-10 extra people happy)?
(Still operating under the assumption this actually is against the bundle rules. Of course, if giving keys is completely okay, then both rule-obeying and rule-breaking users have the same chances, there is no problem, and even I might consider giving some keys away.)
Comment has been collapsed.
As far as SG goes, these are the new rules. As far as the bundles go, that's your contract. And if making 9-10 extra people happy is wrong, I don't wanna be right ;).
Comment has been collapsed.
Gala and Groupees have both explicitly supported giving out individual keys in the past. Gala stated as much in a tweet around the time Humble switched to the single-key format, and Groupees' support explicitly suggested it during Be Mine Bundle.
Humble Bundle and Indie Royale both ask you not to.
Comment has been collapsed.
(Links would be great, do you remember where to find them?)
As I said earlier, I would be especially interested in HIB's and Indie Gala's views regarding their ToS and their meaning, considering the documents are basically identical. This would either mean that Indie Gala support does not understand its own ToS, or that HIB keys aren't protected by HIB ToS, but only by some not-entirely-easy-to-find wish, expressed somewhere outside the only document a buyer is required to read. I find both of these possibilities very interesting.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, I have better things to do than hunt down months-old Twitter posts.
Comment has been collapsed.
5:1 odds on the second one. Care to wager? Say... my skyrim vs. your orcs must die 2?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup.
The keys you bought are yours, but , as any thing that is yours, you can gift it to whoever you like or love.
Too bad you didn't take me up on my wager, I really wanted OMD2.
Comment has been collapsed.
As far as I can see, that would be only 4:1, assuming you didn't have a chance to prepare for this by buying Skyrim in advance, in which case the ratio would now be closer to 3:1, or even 2:1. ;-) Also, I already have Skyrim, and taking into account the topic of this discussion, you should be more than content with an Indie Gala Air Conflicts: Secret Wars key. And lastly, I still haven't received the reply from HIB. All in good time, let's wait for the chickens to hatch first.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh? because I did. "Chuck" me an email address and I'll forward it if you'd like, but that one liner up there was the official response. I'll change the text to make it look more official.
Oh, and I already have Air conflicts: Secret Wars ;) Lots of cheevos on that one, you should try it.
The keys you bought are yours, but , as any thing that is yours, you can gift it to whoever you like or love. Comment has been collapsed.
was the official response
Yup, I know, I got the same. Now I'm waiting for HIB's point of view, to see if this wasn't just a happy-go-lucky support employee, while their lawyers are loading their sawn-off shotguns and looking up where we live.
(By the way, I tried Air Conflicts, but I guess I'll stick to (lame pun indeed intended) Il-2 Sturmovik.)
Comment has been collapsed.
So long as we can accept that we have an answer for indie gala, and that whatever HiB says has nothing to do with it, that's fine. Ask whoever you want. I've only been purchasing HiB for myself, but I grab the gala for friends as well, as you really can't beat that happy hour deal.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're sick of them because:
A: People shouldn't make giveaways you don't want or already own, in which case remember, just because you don't want a game doesn't mean nobody wants it.
or B: you're upset that this site values giving away gifts on Steam more than the sanctity of your epeen score, in which case please reconsider the name of the site, which is Steamgifts.com
or C: You agree that the giveaways are for "shitty" games, in which case can you provide some objective reasons as to what makes them universally "shitty"?
Comment has been collapsed.
If you are really worried about the contrib value of everyone giving games away, you should complain about contrib value. Following that logic, every game that, at least once, had a discount, being it on summer sale, christmas sale, mid-week madness, or any other, should have it's value lowered by that amount, forever, to be fair.
I know there are people that giveaway titles that are bought when they are at no discount, but many buy them when they are on discount to giveaway and they get the same "contribution".
just my 2 cents.
Comment has been collapsed.
I love your description on that giveaway...
Edit: ITT internet lawyers argue over whether or not people who complain about bundle games are whining because they e-peen isn't big enough or if people who give away bundle games are "scamming the system" as opposed to just generous.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, beliefs are beliefs because people cling to them despite all evidence to the contrary. I get that. I just wish people who had an issue would have an issue in silence instead of gettin' all up in my greel.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, now that it is no longer against the rules here, I'm not getting all up in thy grill. Go on spreading the love. As long as you only spread bundle keys from bundles that do not explicitly forbid you from doing so, I guess.
I'm just voicing my issues with the system one whiny post at a time. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
But why do you feel bundles should be given away as a whole unit?
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess were our views separate is the magnitude of this issue. For me, this seems to be utterly simple.
Bundles are sold as complete units. If they'd wish the items be separated, they'd sell 'em individually. Some places even tell you to not give out keys separately. Also, it just seems wrong. Who says you can't add a little emotion in your opinions.
There's also the issue of me not knowing, if that key you gave my was the whole game; or did you give Desura keys to someone else and kept the DRM-free binaries for your own use.
On top of it all, the OPs argument in another thread was that every bundle purchaser should have the right to break the agreement between them and the seller if they so desire; and it shouldn't matter to this website or any third party, how the keys were obtained. I nearly had to congratulate him for formulating an argument so baffling (for me) that I was rendered nearly speechless.
P. S. A quick addendum. By simple I do not mean "easy to understand, you simpleton" but rather "the opposite of complex, hence not requiring a lengthy explanation".
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, your first point is no longer universally valid, at least coming from Indie Gala - Firstly, others in this thread have gotten confirmations from their staff that they have no problem with parting out bundles, and secondly, they do sell the keys individually now.
As for the second one, that's what HIB and Indie Royale say, and that's why those two in particular ask you not to. My problem, though, is that other bundles don't mind if you part them out, but people (not without reason considering the follow-the-leader tendancies of bundles) have a hard time keeping the specifics of their business seperate. So in the past, I couldn't give away an Indie Gala key that was totally legally paid for and wasn't being duplicated or anything, because a completely different bundle asked people not to.
And lastly, I usually try to keep threads seperate, to the point that I rarely recognise users across threads unless they specifically point out who they are or in some way particularly distinctive. I don't particularly remember anything the OP said in any other thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, I'd rather people didn't just quietly simmer their issue in silence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and as long as they're in compliance with the rules they're entitled to share it with others here.
I just wish more people gave accurate, objective, and relevant reasons for their opinions. Not "because they're shitty," not "I'm still against them", not the unsupported assertion that all bundles (not just HIB/Royale, who ask you to) should be given as a unit... it's not enough, IMO, to just assert that you believe something. One should be able to clearly articulate why they believe it and present persuasive and logical arguments towards those who don't.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are entirely correct.
Although, I was being a man of few words for a number of reasons here. Pick any.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair enough on some points; this topic has been in the forums nonstop since before the new rule proposals.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reply from Indie Gala support:
The keys you bought are yours, but , as any thing that is yours, you can gift it to whoever you like or love.
As always common sense plays an important role in the life, if you would "trade" 200 keys it would be suspect but it's fine with few of them.
Next step: Asking HIB support what exactly it is that prevents me from giving away their keys, considering the Indie Gala and HIB terms are basically identical.
Bonus thing to wonder about: Where exactly is the boundary between "few of them are fine" and "200 are not fine, but suspect"?
Comment has been collapsed.
and the fact that even "suspect" isn't the same as "wrong". I pay a good price for my indie galas, so I'm never going to think I'm ripping anyone off, regardless.
Comment has been collapsed.
ALSO: I hope you can appreciate what checking my spam folder for the better part of 24 hours did to me. Traumatizing. I have like 85 million dollars waiting for me in Nigeria, on a check card in US customs, at JFK airport, and in the posession of "Hounorable Barrister Jones" respectively, my man member is just a few pills away from me tripping over it when I walk, beauties from Russia are just waiting for me to fly them out to essentially become my sex slave, I'm got 3 stock tips that are going to make me independantly wealthy, and can make 700 dollars a day from the basement of my home.
It really does a number on one's faith in humanity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Response from Humble Bundle. When asked whether it's their ToS that prevents transferring keys, they say neither explicit one-word yea, nor nay, though the wording does suggests that they do not count transferring the keys as a personal use by one individual, as required by ToS.
Thanks for emailing us. You are correct in that the bundle as a whole (as a “product”) is for their personal, non-commercial use. We offer the ability to purchase gift keys so that people can give those away either to friends or for various giveaways, thus keeping the given bundle as a product that is redeemed by one individual for their personal use. What I mean to say is, the Steam keys are meant as an additional bonus for an individual when they purchase a bundle, since some people prefer DRM-free copies and some prefer Steam, and we’re happy to be able to provide both to the purchaser. They’re not intended to be shared.
I couldn’t speak for the Indie Gala or how they arranged their Terms of Service.
Comment has been collapsed.
BAH! What a waffle around the question. It definately looks like HiB wants all theirs being served together. That being said, I also won't call anyone out on posting HiB key, because it really isn't in their ToS, and depending on where you live, even if it were it wouldn't be valid. As for me, well, if a humble bundle looks good, I'll buy it for myself. But the gala got about twice what I was planning on spending out of me due to their policy, so I guess that's just what HiB will have to do without.
Comment has been collapsed.
From the Humble Bundle TOS:
"The Service is only for sales of products or product rights (collectively, "Products") to end user customers for their personal, non-commercial use."
This looks very clear to me and even if it wasn't in there, it would still be against the law in almost any country in the world.
The big difference between the HIB and the IG is, that IG usually gives you a single key (either for Steam, Desura or direct download), HIB on the other hand, gives you at least 2, if not 3 keys for the same game, which obviously doesn't mean, you get 3 end-user licenses for that game.
So in short:
giving away a Indie Gala key = ok
giving away a Humble Indie Bundle (or Indie Royale) key = duplicating and thus illegal
Comment has been collapsed.
It's like I thought. What they're wanting to avoid is one person essentially getting multiple licenses to the same game, which is reasonable enough, but the language in their TOS does not actually specifically preclude gifts in the "personal use" clause. It's the language in their FAQ that forbids it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I bought a couple Groupees bundles with the intention of giving them away whole. But they never got added to the list like HiB and IG. So now that bundle keys are okay, I'll be parting them out as well. It's not like I can use them myself (already have all the games), heh.
Comment has been collapsed.
27 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by Dominicanoed
45 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by FlameB1
15,462 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by devotee
9 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by BloodyRo
2 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Berion83
8 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by Axelflox
19 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by Foxhack
136 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by herbesdeprovence
505 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by GeoSol
128 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by lionheart987
137 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by quijote3000
123 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by OneNonLy
861 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by Ratspike
202 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Fenchurch
I told you I'd make giveaways if they became acceptable.
First of many.
Comment has been collapsed.