license for two computers
olexandr
Member Posts: 1
I have two computers. If I order one copy of the game can I run a single player on both of them? I guess for multi players I would need two separate licenses, right?
0
Comments
A good way to think about it is the multiple installations are for you to put on your devices, so no matter where your at you can play, ie, desktop, laptop, second laptop/desktop, etc.
The only thing you can't do is play a multiplayer game with two devices using the same license.
Remember that you do not own the software, you are being licensed the rights to play the game on devices you own.
Does that sound legal/fair/right to you?
The online sale of games expand the business capacity and raised significantly the profits, as you cut from the ratio of consumption several intermediary expenses and easly reach more customers that you didn't had access before, but the companies for another side doesn't want to revaluate their copyrights reach, and try to use the same restrictions of physical sales to their online sales (and this isn't a privilege of Beamdog, every game company make this).
So @olexandr, in the end it's up to you what you gonna do, use good sense, in my view if i have more than one PC in my house (what i don't atm) i have all the rights to install the game in all my computers and call my friends to play with me with one copy of the product, but to spread the game by install it on an friend's house is a little too much.
A good example is Microsoft Office, which allows you to install the software on one desktop and one laptop, as you can own both but do not use both at the same time.
They don't care if you let your friend play the game, because that allows a new player to experience the game. They mostly care if you start distributing it to thousands and thousands of potential customers that might otherwise have purchased the game for themselves.
That's why you can have several copies running concurrently, but can't play multiplayer with those copies unless each copy is using a separate license.
Why on Earth would they allow you to install the game on your friends computer to open up "potential customers" when that "customer" isn't even paying to begin with?
And just to make sure you are not confusing anything, installing the game to show a friend then removing it and installing the game to show the friend then leaving it installed on his computer so he can play it, are two totally different things. I am talking about the later violating the license.
I'll see if I can find a quote for you.
You don't have to spend time looking for the quote because I know what you are referring to.
I'm not going to spend time trying to change your mind if you have already justified sharing one purchase amongst multiple people that have not paid, but if your inclined to do such a thing that is your prerogative.
Did you just not read the "he won't stand in the way" part? Of course a developer would like to sell more copies of their game. That doesn't mean a developer doesn't want as many people to play it as possible.
The fact that the authentication is done at the time of installation, rather than at launch, should tell you something about where the priority is. They'll encourage you to install it and reinstall it as many times as you like, as long as you're the one actually performing the installation. This includes installing the game on a friend's computer so they can play it for themselves and see what all the fuss is about.
In any case, none of us has seen the license agreement, so this is all speculation. What we do know is what is actually allowed by the software itself, without any intervention of cracks or hacks. You can install the game on as many PC machines as you like without repercussion. The game doesn't care if you're the one playing the game or not, as long as you're the one who installed it.
The concept of "ability to share" with digital media is the same as the concept of "ability to lend" in physical media. We don't have the physical discs anymore, so you can't actually "lend" a game to your friend as readily as you could ten years ago. What Beamdog has done here is create a method for you to do that, by designing their software to allow you to perform multiple installations with relative impunity.
For better clarity: Do I think it's ethical to share the game with 20 friends, or 200 friends, and sit there with them to install it so that they don't have to buy it for themselves? No.
But do I think it should be prohibited? No. If it means that you show the game to one of your friends, and that friend gets hooked on the game's story and decides to buy it for himself and then shares it with another of his friends, then that's a definite win for the industry and for Beamdog.
Again, it has ethical complications if you abuse the privilege, but until we read the actual EULA, none of us can say for certain whether this is something that Beamdog wants to prevent.
I'm totally in agreement with what you are saying, as I've shared many PC games before, but they all required the disc so only one person could play at a time. As a matter of fact though, I borrowed the original BG 5 disc set from a friend 14 years ago, which is the reason I'm here today. Since then I've gone on to purchase BG 3 disc set, BG2 Collectors Edition, IWD2, BG 4-in-1 Box Set, and BG:EE, so I know first hand that sharing can lead to additional sales, but it doesn't work that way for everyone.
My entire argument here is just to point out to people that 'sharing' digital media can quickly get out of hand and beyond the original plan and spirit, as pointed out in my 20 friend example.
@TrentOster @PhillipDaigle
We would like your comments and concerns.
There may or may not have been something in there about sharing it with friends, but it's been more than a month since I watched it.
As i said, with internet, in software sales terms, you largely expand the scope of your consumer market, therefore you profit more. However the side effect is that you somehow lost the total control of this product, believe that Team BG take that in account, worse than a player sharing the game with 1 or 2 persons is a hack group take off the first time validation, that's probally Team BG main issue, the prevention of this problem.
-Trent
"I brought this shit and it didn't worked, when i get it running, the game asked me to be online all the time and at each peak on the connection i get dropped from the game! I had to crack my official game to make this shit works!!!!"
Serious, when a company reach this kind of point, where the pirate gamers are more satisfied than the paying ones, that's the end. It's hilarious, well... for me at least as i'm seeing this outside the problem, surely isn't hilarious to Ubisoft or the upsed client.
The enhanced editions will not be an issue, as most of the customers for them are old gamers and true fans (after all we cheer this game for 12 years). The big issue will be the new titles, as the probable Baldur's Gate III, that i think will need a little (or better) protection, at least in my view.
In fact possibility of playing multiplayer with my wife using only one copy is for me one of most important conditions to buy this game.
Then you have people who might have bought the game, but with it being freely available just pirate it, but otherwise if they had been forced to they would have bought it. Obviously this is the group that DRM and anti-piracy approaches are actually targeting. It is also worth bearing in mind that this group dubdivides as well, into people who pirate stuff, and if they enjoy the game go out and buy a copy to support the title. These are also the types of people that if a mate lends em the game, they then like it, they then buy it. The balancing act is this: you want to try and dissuade people who would have bought the game anyway to buy, but you don't want DRM and such that is so draconian that it prevents sales from people, that whom after trying it, would then go on to buy it.
Bottom line is if the demographic of pirates who would go on to buy it after playing (coupled with folks who after being lent the title would go on to buy it) is greater than the number of people who would have bought it. but don't (thanks to piracy), then it's not worth bothering with DRM. Thing is this is dependant on the quality of the game itself. In BG's case we know the game is very very good, so I would suspect in this case the former category is probably bigger than the latter.
I've tried to avoid the whole issue of wether piracy is right/wrong. However for the record whilst I do believe it is wrong, I happen to believe that our civil liberties are more important. I don't think it is for the state to wade in and fix the problem on behalf of vested financial interests, but we as a community of gamers should frown on the practice and dissuade those of us that do through passion for our hobby, and non-judgemental reasoned debate.