See my statement above, they might be authorized by EA, but they've made it clear that they will do anything to get keys at competitive prices, including going through third parties (that they say are authorized) as well. When you get a BF key, and this may or may not be happening so take it with a grain of salt but, you might get a direct-from-EA key or one through a third party, which might be why some BF keys are getting delivered on release and some aren't.
GreenManGaming selling unauthorized Ubi/Acti/WB keys
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
See my statement above, they might be authorized by EA, but they've made it clear that they will do anything to get keys at competitive prices, including going through third parties (that they say are authorized) as well. When you get a BF key, and this may or may not be happening so take it with a grain of salt but, you might get a direct-from-EA key or one through a third party, which might be why some BF keys are getting delivered on release and some aren't.
fluffydelusions
Member
I wonder if that is why some people who got blops 3 got nuketown while others didn't.
YianGaruga
Banned
All the keys come from Bethesda in one way or another
This is true, but people are questioning the path it takes on the way. A working key you get from G2A versus one you can from Amazon (sold-by-amazon) isn't morally the same thing for some people. Others don't care, and that's fine too. But informing customers so that they can make that choice for themselves is important.
Well yes but isn't the argument that they state on their website that they don't go through middlemen but their recent statement and recent actions say that they do go through middlemen. It's not a big deal to just tell people that they source from multiple locations that are all authorized to sell keys. But they state on their website they are a direct distributor which means they get their keys from the source and give them straight to you. There is a difference there that they should not obfuscate like they do.
I think the likelihood of this happening is very unlikely as they don't have very solid justification for doing so as they would still be genuine pub-created keys, not some sort of code hack or purchase based on stolen card info. They just aren't sold by the retailers they prefer. They shouldn't be allowed to control that (barring any cross-region scenario). Maybe there's some technical legal loophole that would allow them to do this, but really they should have no right to do this and by doing so this would start a massive consumer rights backlash, that surely would not end up in their favor, and a reputable retailer should have your back. It would be like a manufacturer bricking your console because you bought it second hand and not from Best Buy or Gamestop. They should not be able to take away the right to re-sell an item. Not giving you full technical support is one thing, but taking your game away is another. Surely advocates for customer rights would have an issue with this, and people shouldn't consider this acceptable behavior. If a pub did try to do this, it could end up being a good thing consumer protection-wise by bringing a questionable action to light.
YianGaruga
Banned
I understand the problem ls with the communication. I don't want to argue that point.
I just want to give my perspective on the word "unauthorized", since it's used in a very negative context by many people.
In the retail space, no one asks where the games are coming from. Your retailer gets them from some distributor network, who themselves get them from Bethesda. That's perferctly legit. And that's only the most simple way. Yet in the digital space people for some reason completely buy the narrative that the publisher should have singular control over who sells their games and how. And if retailers don't get them in the most direct way from the publisher, that is somehow "bad" or worth being sceptical about. And that's not even what most of the bigger publishers are saying. Aside from very few minor incidents, key resellers are left alone to do what they do.
ALL keys come from the publisher and are sold to "authorised" retailers or distributors. From there, they can take any number of ways and some of them end up with GMG who sell them for as good a price as they can manage. I fundamentally don't see a problem with that.
This argument doesn't really work in retail since there is not really a way to source alternate copies that doesn't cost more money that going through the direct distributor. The only situation I can remember even like this was the import company that was bankrupted by Sony I think for importing PSP's. And even then I think they were legal. I agree that there isn't anything inherently wrong with buying copies from authorized retailers but they really should be upfront.
A publisher can't revoke your physical game if they deem it to be an "unauthorized" copy.
YianGaruga
Banned
Yes there is. You should take a look at the UK online retail market, which is heavily sourcing games from Nordic countries or UAE.
And even if it wasn't, I don't see how different prices from different distibutors make it any more shady or questionable.
ALL the games come from them somehow. Why should they be allowed to control what happenes to those keys after that? Who gives them that right? If I buy a key somewhere and resell it personally in whatever way I want, should they be allowed to disable that key afterwards? Shouldn't the fact that they are able to do that at all be questioned here and make people weary of buying keys at all?
Of course they could also revoke Steam keys that come from physical PC copies, I don't see why not.
Yup, GMG needs to clear up their narrative, which is not really in question.
However, I think the bigger talking point to come out of this is why the whole authorized/unauthorized thing seems such easily accepted convention. Why should the pub supposedly even have the ability to revoke a game only because it's not sold by their retailer of choice or resold after they supply it initially? I would have thought that would be a bigger sticking point for people considering topic of free market, used games, and right to resell in recent years. Isn't the idea they they could do that (even if the chances are slim) the most troubling to people?
Vincent Grayson
Member
Can you point to instances of this ever happening?
And I'm not talking about something related to fraud or whatever, but a publisher unilaterally banning keys based on them being "unauthorized" due to who is selling them.
YianGaruga
Banned
The first situation was reversed, the second broke Steam's TOS that you agree to when you make an account. Also the Steam example you cite only affected the SELLERS
I don't agree to any TOS when I buy a key for a game.
Ahh sorry not familiar with UK pricing. You are very defensive about all of this stuff. I am not saying you are in the wrong for doing this I just think companies should be more upfront about their sourcing information. It is perfectly legal so I am not sure why GMG took so long to just confirm that.
You do when you redeem the key generally though.
There is a TOS you agree to when redeeming a key, but I couldn't tell you what it says regarding the origin of the keys.
They make you agree to the regular steam subscriber agreement:
http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/
Quoting various relevant-looking parts:
I don't know if it is the case with the gaming industry. But with other market such as grocery/automobile/ large electronics, the bulk price smaller retailers get from distributer is often higher than the retail(discounted) price offered by larger retailers.
Just to give you some idea on why publishers are allowed to revoke keys they see as unauthorized:
Let's say GMG gets a key from a Nvidia promotion. I'm not saying they are, it's just an example. Nvidia is authorized by the publisher, which obviously gets a cut from it. There's a very thorough contract signed between both of them. If you go to any of these promotions -- for example, the Ubisoft game from last year -- this is on their terms: "Offer may not be substituted, exchanged, sold or redeemed for cash or other goods or services." The same goes for Nuuvem, which says you are not allowed to use the keys commercially.
I imagine every authorized seller has a similar condition. And that's something agreed between them and the publishers. If GMG (or any seller judged as unauthorized by a publisher) sells something they purchased from another seller, then they are not complying with their terms, giving the publisher the right to deactivate these keys at any point. And that's because from that point on, the publisher has absolutely no control regarding the price or how that key is being used.
Let's say GMG gets a key from a Nvidia promotion. I'm not saying they are, it's just an example. Nvidia is authorized by the publisher, which obviously gets a cut from it. There's a very thorough contract signed between both of them. If you go to any of these promotions -- for example, the Ubisoft game from last year -- this is on their terms: "Offer may not be substituted, exchanged, sold or redeemed for cash or other goods or services." The same goes for Nuuvem, which says you are not allowed to use the keys commercially.
I imagine every authorized seller has a similar condition. And that's something agreed between them and the publishers. If GMG (or any seller judged as unauthorized by a publisher) sells something they purchased from another seller, then they are not complying with their terms, giving the publisher the right to deactivate these keys at any point. And that's because from that point on, the publisher has absolutely no control regarding the price or how that key is being used.
Angel Abaddon
Member
Yes they revoked it, but only after a massive outcry from users. The fact they could and did do it is fairly concerning. Yes it is all "could" and "may" but the fact that risk is hanging over it at all is worrying.
Pretty much. If they're buying keys from authorized sources that doesn't necessarily give them the right to redistribute them at profit, which just lines their pockets. And I can't imagine many authorized sources having keys that you're actually allowed to redistribute.
In practice, the chances of this mattering are slim. And most people might not care. But this might also be a reason why GMG are reluctant to disclose how they're obtaining their keys.
Publishers accept a certain amount of loss in order to make sales in underpriviliged regions, and practices like this undermine their goodwill, and will eventually lead to tighter region restrictions and/or removal of cheap regional pricing, both of which only end up hurting consumers.
Angel Abaddon
Member
Does this not go against the EU ruling that it's legal to resell digital goods? Can't say for certain as I've not dug into the specifics of that.
I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, but afaik the ruling is a consumer protection right whereas here we're talking about a business buying and selling keys en masse, which may be viewed differently by the law. Grain of salt though.
I agree, that is probably in the contract, and probably permissible in the US by DMCA.
That said, it is a significant erosion of consumer rights compared to physical goods. Those of us that are pro-reselling are basically saying that the above situation is morally wrong, and shifting rights from consumers to corporations.
There's not really an argument about what contracts may or may not say. They can day literally anything. They can even include clauses that are illegal. (They just won't be enforceable in court).
This is true. However I think it is fair to let the consumer decide if they want to engage in this practice or not, thus this information should be provided to potential buyers. GMG claiming to be a direct-from-pub vendor when they also engage in buying from third parties is also a violation of your right as a consumer. When you buy something that is claimed to be direct-from-pub, you deserve that. Or, you need to be notified that that might not be the case before buying. Being an informed consumer is your right.
I agree with this, for the reason that pubs can revoke keys.
That said, I also think that consumer rights should be in place where such a thing just doesn't matter.
Edit: meaning pubs can't unilaterally revoke keys outside of specific circumstances, like fraud.
I think there is a problem with how digital rights are handled if the publisher is allowed to take away a resold product from the consumer in such a scenario. I think there's still a lot of work to be done in this area. Digital and physical goods are not 100% analogous, and can't be handled identically, but such strict lockdown over the ability to resell seems a bit too skewed toward the publisher at the expense of the consumer compared to physical goods. Ideally, all the consumer should be worried about is whether or not the key was originally generated by the pub, regardless of how many hands it passed through in the chain, and not obtained illegally via fraud or stolen.
No Battlefront keys are being delivered on release as far as the internet can tell. Here, reddit, GMG forums it is all the same - no one has a key. They must be waiting for the rest of the world release on Thursday to get the keys. It's very possible that some people got their keys already and just don't post on forums of course, but also unlikely. GMG were simply not prepared to sell this product on time.
There are a few possibilities related to the reasons. For example, on the Extra Life stream of Life is Strange from Square-Enix, they gave away five keys, but only to residents from the US and Europe. They wanted to give to the rest of the world, but legal restrictions forbid them. So I imagine there are legal restrictions we are not really aware of and when a key is purchased without a region lock, the publisher might face legal issues for a few reasons, including, but not limited to, rating.
Also, support. If you go to them because there's an issue with your key, but you bought from an unauthorized seller, they cannot be sure why there is an issue because they didn't provide the key directly to this seller.
Finally, like it was said before, the idea that a seller could buy from a cheaper region and sell to you more close to the price in your region could eventually lead to region lock. I already cannot buy gifts on Steam for my friends outside of South America because people from other countries explored the price difference, which led to region lock for gifts.
Publishers have the right to deactivate a key not because they are evil or greedy. Yes, they want profit, of course, otherwise they will go bankrupt and cannot pay devs for their work. But also due to legal protections, support scenarios and possibility to sell games at affordable price in underprivileged regions.
I see a lot of people in the thread saying there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of regional price differences, and while I accept that as a consumer you shouldn't have to think about that, it isn't a sustainable attitude to have.
Let's take the example of a drug company: I make a malaria drug say, and it costs me $10 to make a course of treatment. If I sell that in a less economically developed region, most hospitals couldn't afford to pay $10 per patient, and it's not fair to make people go without just because their jobs don't put like those in the first world do. So what do I do? I sell it there at $1 a course. and then sell it in the USA at $30 a course to offset the loss I'm making elsewhere and put it at a profit elsewhere.
This only works however assuming you keep things restricted by region. If you're selling a CD key for $20 in Russia or Mexico or wherever, you do it on the assumption that you are getting at least some people to pay, which makes you more money than if everyone just pirated it, which is what would likely happen if you tried to sell it at US price. But if US consumers start buying up the Russian Keys, then suddenly your game isn't a sustainable and profitable product any more, because you can't rely on the US price effectively propping up the prices elsewhere and making sure you turn a profit.
This leaves two options in the long run:
1. Set prices globally to $60, and leave money on the table when less well off people pirate your game in response to not being able to buy it at a regionally appropriate price anymore.
2. Enforce region-locking, with all the well established issues that in turn leads to in enforcing that.
Now the issue of enforcing different prices between economically comparable markets is a different issue entirely, but I'm not looking to write an economics paper here...
Let's take the example of a drug company: I make a malaria drug say, and it costs me $10 to make a course of treatment. If I sell that in a less economically developed region, most hospitals couldn't afford to pay $10 per patient, and it's not fair to make people go without just because their jobs don't put like those in the first world do. So what do I do? I sell it there at $1 a course. and then sell it in the USA at $30 a course to offset the loss I'm making elsewhere and put it at a profit elsewhere.
This only works however assuming you keep things restricted by region. If you're selling a CD key for $20 in Russia or Mexico or wherever, you do it on the assumption that you are getting at least some people to pay, which makes you more money than if everyone just pirated it, which is what would likely happen if you tried to sell it at US price. But if US consumers start buying up the Russian Keys, then suddenly your game isn't a sustainable and profitable product any more, because you can't rely on the US price effectively propping up the prices elsewhere and making sure you turn a profit.
This leaves two options in the long run:
1. Set prices globally to $60, and leave money on the table when less well off people pirate your game in response to not being able to buy it at a regionally appropriate price anymore.
2. Enforce region-locking, with all the well established issues that in turn leads to in enforcing that.
Now the issue of enforcing different prices between economically comparable markets is a different issue entirely, but I'm not looking to write an economics paper here...
I'm not really talking about cross-region though. Even given the same region and the support issue, I still think revoking a same-region key because it passed through several resellers' hands is unreasonable.
I think the difference here is that there is virtually no supply constriction and very minimal cost involved with producing more keys for the cheaper regions. Other products have greater production and distribution costs and real supply constructions, digital products basically don't. If Russia runs out of codes, the publisher will just say, "awesome, let's sell some more codes."
The problem arises if the gray market gets so big that publishers run their numbers and realize they are making less money even though they are selling more keys than in years past. They'll then start to enforce region locking so no one can get cheaper keys from different regions.
I think right now the publishers are alright with these gray market sites because they feel like they are helping them to sell copies that they wouldn't otherwise be selling. If everyone stops buying anything on Steam for $59.99 and gray market sales at $40 become a significant percentage of the codes they're selling, you're fooling yourselves if you think the pubs aren't going to do anything about it. It would be allowing the gray market to essentially set the msrp at $40 for AAA titles, and they aren't going to let that happen. They know the percentages of where the codes are coming from, and eventually they're going to get uncomfortable with those percentages when way too many of them are coming from cheaper regions.
Quite unlikely, has never happened with GMG before to my knowledge but I'd say it's like a 99% guarantee, not a 100%.
----------------------------------------------
This is my fear for the endgame of this scenario. And that will just end up hurting consumers.
Regional pricing discrimination is not a charitable decision on the behalf of publishers, it is a strategy to maximize revenue. The intent is not to be nice to people living in poorer countries, but to make the most money possible. I don't think your comparison of life saving medication with entertainment products is particularly water tight, either. These are products which are very different from each other.
It is pretty easy to see that regional pricing discrimination is simply about maximizing revenue when you compare prices on Steam in the USA to the prices in many poorer European countries. The USA routinely gets lower prices than many poorer countries, Why? Because the various market conditions in those poorer countries mean that charging a higher price generates more revenue for publishers. Hell, I am currently living in a country where a salary of $200 a month isn't unusual, but Steam still offers me USA pricing. If it were just about being nice to people in poorer countries, there would be no reason for countries with far less disposable income to be charged the same or in some cases more than what the richest countries in the world are charged.
Seeking to maximise revenue isn't inherently wrong or evil, but when faced with businesses acting in such a way to get the most money out of consumers as possible for a given good or set of goods, the rational response from consumers is to act in such a way to hand over the least money possible.
It would be extremely easy for major publishers to end the unauthorised trade of keys for their games if they were to wish to, but there are a variety of profitable actions they would need to cease. Hence the scenario we have today where unauthorised retailers are a thriving market.
I'm not saying that ending/reducing regional pricing discrimination, or having more robust region locking couldn't possibly happen, but I'm not convinced by the slippery slope argument here. Valve are pushing further and further towards severe regional pricing discrimination with every new currency they add support for on Steam. There have been minor increases in region locks in some cases (and I suppose you could point to the end of the free for all at Nuuvem as one such case), but despite the ease with which publishers could use extremely granular region locks today were they to wish to do so, very few actually do.
In the meantime, it would be absurd to me for any consumers to opt out of a better price from an unauthorised retailer simply because of fears that publishers could respond with undesirable policies. There are plenty of other reasons why someone might want to avoid unauthorised retailers, but I don't think this particular one is very rational.
It is pretty easy to see that regional pricing discrimination is simply about maximizing revenue when you compare prices on Steam in the USA to the prices in many poorer European countries. The USA routinely gets lower prices than many poorer countries, Why? Because the various market conditions in those poorer countries mean that charging a higher price generates more revenue for publishers. Hell, I am currently living in a country where a salary of $200 a month isn't unusual, but Steam still offers me USA pricing. If it were just about being nice to people in poorer countries, there would be no reason for countries with far less disposable income to be charged the same or in some cases more than what the richest countries in the world are charged.
Seeking to maximise revenue isn't inherently wrong or evil, but when faced with businesses acting in such a way to get the most money out of consumers as possible for a given good or set of goods, the rational response from consumers is to act in such a way to hand over the least money possible.
It would be extremely easy for major publishers to end the unauthorised trade of keys for their games if they were to wish to, but there are a variety of profitable actions they would need to cease. Hence the scenario we have today where unauthorised retailers are a thriving market.
I'm not saying that ending/reducing regional pricing discrimination, or having more robust region locking couldn't possibly happen, but I'm not convinced by the slippery slope argument here. Valve are pushing further and further towards severe regional pricing discrimination with every new currency they add support for on Steam. There have been minor increases in region locks in some cases (and I suppose you could point to the end of the free for all at Nuuvem as one such case), but despite the ease with which publishers could use extremely granular region locks today were they to wish to do so, very few actually do.
In the meantime, it would be absurd to me for any consumers to opt out of a better price from an unauthorised retailer simply because of fears that publishers could respond with undesirable policies. There are plenty of other reasons why someone might want to avoid unauthorised retailers, but I don't think this particular one is very rational.
skullmuffins
Banned
Pretty sure it later came out that the keys in that first instance were bought from Origin using stolen credit cards, not to mention that Ubisoft reinstated the games anyway.
Requested a refund less than 30 minutes ago for my Star Wars Battlefront pre-order I placed at the beginning of October. Their customer service was quick and professional and my refund has already been processed through Greenmangaming so now I just wait to see it show up in my bank account. I'm sure they will take care of customers that don't cancel their pre-order but not having keys available before or even on launch day for a major game is not good, they did send us an email yesterday to inform us which is nice but it still sucks.
Publishers can revoke stolen keys (and often do), but a retail key of the same region doesn't magically become "unauthorized" just because it was resold. That can't be legally revoked.
If a game is purchased from an authorized distributor, a US example would be Image, then it's still authorized when a store is reselling it. Authorized does not mean "bought direct from publisher."
Unauthorized would mean stolen, illegitimately obtained or out-of-region.
GMG has a history of taking care of customers, including refunding with Arkham.
No one, including yourself, has shown evidence that GMG is buying keys through unauthorized channels. If it is sourcing from random individuals, then yes, it's acting as an unauthorized seller. But if it is buying from authorized distributors throughout the EU, then there is nothing unauthorized about it.
As for Black Ops 3, GMG never advertised any pre-order bonus as coming with the game. If someone bought from them and didn't get Nuketown, there is no basis for complaint. The pre-order bonus was exclusive to GAME in the UK, which means no other shop in the UK sold BO3 w/Nuketown (this includes Amazon and other retail shops). It was not included "everywhere else" as you claim.
Battlefront has a release date of Nov 19 in Europe. GMG is based in the UK. Technically, it's not out yet for GMG. If the company is sticking to authorized sales, then wouldn't you expect it to honor the European release date?
From Amazon.co.uk:
Valve is the only one known to have done so. Before Steam had regions, Valve got pissed at people who were buying retail copies from Thailand and using them in the US. Those were all revoked and Valve basically said "tough shit."
GMG is based in the UK. The European release date is the 19th. How is that "not on time" if the keys are delivered by then?
Contest rules in various countries are a legal minefield. That has more to do with local law than any "publisher rights" around keys.
YianGaruga
Banned
So we should stop using grey market sites so publishers won't try to shut down grey market sites?
The same risk as buying from any other site. There may always be mistakes even with the "authorized" retailers, but in the end you'll get another key or a refund. This is also true for the keys that GMG sells. In the end it's the same as with every other purchse: Do you trust the vendor enough to make it right if something goes wrong? And I'm going to say GMG won't try to scam you or run away with your money.
The chance of keys actually being revoked by the publisher are very, very small.
Publishers can revoke stolen keys (and often do), but a retail key of the same region doesn't magically become "unauthorized" just because it was resold. That can't be legally revoked.
If a game is purchased from an authorized distributor, a US example would be Image, then it's still authorized when a store is reselling it. Authorized does not mean "bought direct from publisher."
Unauthorized would mean stolen, illegitimately obtained or out-of-region.
GMG has a history of taking care of customers, including refunding with Arkham.
No one, including yourself, has shown evidence that GMG is buying keys through unauthorized channels. If it is sourcing from random individuals, then yes, it's acting as an unauthorized seller. But if it is buying from authorized distributors throughout the EU, then there is nothing unauthorized about it.
As for Black Ops 3, GMG never advertised any pre-order bonus as coming with the game. If someone bought from them and didn't get Nuketown, there is no basis for complaint. The pre-order bonus was exclusive to GAME in the UK, which means no other shop in the UK sold BO3 w/Nuketown (this includes Amazon and other retail shops). It was not included "everywhere else" as you claim.
Battlefront has a release date of Nov 19 in Europe. GMG is based in the UK. Technically, it's not out yet for GMG. If the company is sticking to authorized sales, then wouldn't you expect it to honor the European release date?
From Amazon.co.uk:
Valve is the only one known to have done so. Before Steam had regions, Valve got pissed at people who were buying retail copies from Thailand and using them in the US. Those were all revoked and Valve basically said "tough shit."
GMG is based in the UK. The European release date is the 19th. How is that "not on time" if the keys are delivered by then?
Contest rules in various countries are a legal minefield. That has more to do with local law than any "publisher rights" around keys.
Wouldn't buying EU keys and then selling them in the US violate Valves TOS?
I'm assuming he meant more about the region locking, but there's also nothing wrong with being concerned about overuse of gray market sites resulting in the removal of a cheaper channel for games. People torrenting back in the day also were concerned about over exposure.
Here's my take:
As long as the keys are originally purchased from authorized sellers, and as long as nothing is being purchased with stolen IDs (which I trust is not the case here), I don't really care if GMG gets their keys directly or indirectly from pubs.
Pubs/Devs are getting paid for each of these keys. There are region lock options in place on Steam and I assume Origin if publishers don't want people to buy cheaper keys from Eastern Europe or Latin America. As far as I know, GMG doesn't offer anything that forces their customers to risk their accounts by using VPN to circumnavigate regional restrictions. Having purchased a number of region-free Steam keys on GAF for cheap in the past, I also know that Valve doesn't retroactively region-lock stuff when they decide to change the regional permissions on a title in their backlog. I think you have a better risk of your console damaging your physical game than you do of any of these keys being revoked.
I think the large majority of regular GMG pre-order discounts (15-25%) are legit, with GMG just taking a hit on their 30% cut. If you are getting the game for 30-45% off, then the keys were probably sourced from a cheaper seller, and you will have to make your decisions accordingly.
As long as the keys are originally purchased from authorized sellers, and as long as nothing is being purchased with stolen IDs (which I trust is not the case here), I don't really care if GMG gets their keys directly or indirectly from pubs.
Pubs/Devs are getting paid for each of these keys. There are region lock options in place on Steam and I assume Origin if publishers don't want people to buy cheaper keys from Eastern Europe or Latin America. As far as I know, GMG doesn't offer anything that forces their customers to risk their accounts by using VPN to circumnavigate regional restrictions. Having purchased a number of region-free Steam keys on GAF for cheap in the past, I also know that Valve doesn't retroactively region-lock stuff when they decide to change the regional permissions on a title in their backlog. I think you have a better risk of your console damaging your physical game than you do of any of these keys being revoked.
I think the large majority of regular GMG pre-order discounts (15-25%) are legit, with GMG just taking a hit on their 30% cut. If you are getting the game for 30-45% off, then the keys were probably sourced from a cheaper seller, and you will have to make your decisions accordingly.
Lower your shield, please. GMG advertised November 17th availability for NA customers. Their support forums also said "thousands" would get the game on the 17th just yesterday. They fully and completely advertised Nov 17th availability until less than 2 days ago. They are in the wrong because they cannot achieve what they advertised.
Publishers can revoke stolen keys (and often do), but a retail key of the same region doesn't magically become "unauthorized" just because it was resold. That can't be legally revoked.
If a game is purchased from an authorized distributor, a US example would be Image, then it's still authorized when a store is reselling it. Authorized does not mean "bought direct from publisher."
Unauthorized would mean stolen, illegitimately obtained or out-of-region.
GMG has a history of taking care of customers, including refunding with Arkham.
No one, including yourself, has shown evidence that GMG is buying keys through unauthorized channels. If it is sourcing from random individuals, then yes, it's acting as an unauthorized seller. But if it is buying from authorized distributors throughout the EU, then there is nothing unauthorized about it.
As for Black Ops 3, GMG never advertised any pre-order bonus as coming with the game. If someone bought from them and didn't get Nuketown, there is no basis for complaint. The pre-order bonus was exclusive to GAME in the UK, which means no other shop in the UK sold BO3 w/Nuketown (this includes Amazon and other retail shops). It was not included "everywhere else" as you claim.
Battlefront has a release date of Nov 19 in Europe. GMG is based in the UK. Technically, it's not out yet for GMG. If the company is sticking to authorized sales, then wouldn't you expect it to honor the European release date?
From Amazon.co.uk:
Valve is the only one known to have done so. Before Steam had regions, Valve got pissed at people who were buying retail copies from Thailand and using them in the US. Those were all revoked and Valve basically said "tough shit."
GMG is based in the UK. The European release date is the 19th. How is that "not on time" if the keys are delivered by then?
Contest rules in various countries are a legal minefield. That has more to do with local law than any "publisher rights" around keys.
Nope, nope and nope. For them to get the keys from "authorized distributors throughout the EU", it would have to be from actual authorised distributors of digital games, not physical. Once again, this makes GMG unauthorised. I guarantee you the places where they are getting the games don't have a contract that actually allows them to sell the keys in a digital space. If they did, ALL OF THE ISSUES THEY HAD SO FAR WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST.
It doesn't fucking matter if GMG is based in the UK. They still sell stuff on the US and in the things that are authorised are released in the usual dates. Not a single time on their authorised products did they postpone the delivery of the codes just because UK had a different release date. You're literally making shit up.
Black Ops 3 preorder included bonuses in every single digital retailer that is authorised, including UK ones. The exclusivity was only for physical games..
GMG isn't a retail store and it isn't represented as such. Cut the crap, please.
For the last damn time , unauthorised doesn't mean illegal. It literally means unauthorised.
IchigoSharingan
Member
you call it season pass.......i call it the other half of the game
There doesn't seem to be a reason to cancel, unless you want the game on day of release which they will not be delivering, they'll be a few days late.
Where did this information come from?
MarcoZombieCannon
Member
They're delivering keys on the UK release date, the 19th. Plus maybe after that since they got so many orders: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1140974&highlight=battlefront
They didn't receive enough keys to cover all of the pre-orders, I think the people effected have been emailed.