If you bought it from a store, you should definitely try for a refund.

I don't think the game is unplayable, but you are missing out on a lot IMO. The updates are not just fixes, they contain additions as well, AFAIK.

Personally, I think it's outrageous that Stardock screws over used game buyers with this updates-require-registration deal. Many games can only be registered once — that's normal — but very few restrict updates and patches to the previous owner only, except for MMORPGs and the like.

And there's no warning, either to the consumer or the retailer, that used copies cannot receive official updates and patches (until the disc is actually in the drive, that is). While Stardock can technically claim, "You're still getting the game advertised on the box," access to updates and patches is assumed as a given these days, so denying them to used buyers is rather unfair.

I know game companies have it in for the used market these days, but customers aren't to blame for it and shouldn't be punished.

Personally, all my GCII stuff is digitally downloaded, and I bought each chapter as it was released. So for me, it's not a problem... but hearing about it is pretty aggravating, and although I love GCII and Stardock, this is definitely a mar on their image in my eyes. It's "just not cool," so to speak.

So the back of the retail box actually states that you shouldn't purchase the game used? Or that the game can only be registered once, after which it becomes worthless in the aftermarket?

I find that hard to believe, mainly because most EULAs are ridiculously long... but I've never had the physical box in hand, so perhaps it's the case. Yes, I read EULAs. However, retailers don't examine the fine print on the packaging of all of their products, and no one really expects them to. Consumers, too, don't necessarily read the entire packaging before purchasing. I guess you can blame them if they miss something in fine print, but again, I think it's a bit unfair. Check the system requirements, read the blurb, that's pretty standard these days.

Finally, as for Stardock's way being "much better than anyone else's," in this specific case, I disagree with you. When "protecting your interests" means causing inconveniences for legitimate, paying customers (even if they're buying from a market you dislike), you may simply anger them and cause them to seek out illegitimate means of acquiring the game, and also future games developed by that same company.

That all sounds reasonable enough, but when planning the logistics for anything in life, one should generally take the most prevalent scenario into account.

Your average gamer won't realize that the game they're selling can't be updated without the original registration details, because the vast majority of games don't require that; it's outside of the norm. Of course, your average gamer doesn't read EULAs to begin with, which I'm sure falls into the "then that's their fault" category, but we all still know it's the case. And even if they did read it, maybe they've shelved GCII for a year and have forgotten by the time they go to sell it.

People aren't 100% vigilant and attentive with computer games, especially when it comes to EULAs and such, or buying and selling.

All I'm saying is that perhaps games like GCII could do with a prominent (not too prominent, just not fine print) label on the box that says, "Original registration required for support, patches, and updates" or something along those lines.

I'm not trying to argue you into the ground; I just think GCII is a grand old game, and ideally I'd like to see every customer experience it with a minimum of hassle.

causing inconveniences for legitimate, paying customers (even if they're buying from a market you dislike)

The problem being that in all technicality, they're not legitimate customers.  Do you know why companies like GameStop currently have money coming out of their ears, and why game developers hate them?  Because they're not legally required to give ANY money to the game publishers - and they don't.  When you buy a used game not a single cent of your purchase goes to the company - and as such, no, I don't feel they're obligated to provide any sort of support whatsoever.  Maybe if MORE companies took that stance we could actually, I don't know, get some laws enacted to be a bit fair to the developers.

And to anyone who says "but people buy and sell used items all the time and never have to provide any money to the companies" - yes, that's true, but that statement generally applies to non-digital items, and it is usually understood by people that there is a consequence to buying used.  If you buy a used car, it has more mileage, a shorter lifespan, is more prone to breaking down, etc.  When you buy a used book, there may be pages torn out or writing in it or just general wear and tear.  For most of the items that are sold used, there is a downside.

When you buy a used game you get the full product in pristine condition.  Moreover, GameStop pays people 1-3 dollars for most games and then turns around and sells them for 20-40.  They are raking in money and it's seriously harming companies, as it's very common for people these days to buy a game, play it and then turn around and sell it when they're finished.  

I know it sounds mean but I'm all for watching the used game market go down in flames, before every company has to merge with EA or Activision to survive.