Game's aren't inherently special. Books, movies, music and other media can be resold, transferred, etc. Photocopy machines and cassette tapes failed to kill either the book or music industry and casual piracy isn't killing gaming. Gaming rakes in more than Hollywood does on movies.

EULAs, with very few exceptions enshrined only in case law (not actual law), mean about as much as an author's wish for you to not resell your book: fuck all.

EULA clauses, where they don't match actual law or the preponderance of case law mean very little and you can and should be able to resell, trade, swap, backup, or give away your copy of game as you wish. DRM is a bullshit trick to try and circumvent that and the natural inclination of most folks is to try and get around said DRM or simply avoid media with DRM.

All copyright actually forbids is making an actual copy unless you are the copyright holder or its agent.
The term you are probably looking for is "contract of adhesion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract

Contracts of adhesion are often thrown out as unconscionable by the courts, for example due to the unequal bargaining power between employers and employees, non-compete agreements are not binding in several US states (e.g. California) and you are free to ignore them.

Actually, it doesn't really matter if you agree or disagree with the EULA. Once you proceed to install the game, and click the okay button to install, you have agreed to everything it says. Sure, you are buying a license to use the game. A license is a privilege like driving a car. Do you have the right to drive a car? Sure. As long as you follow the laws and rules of the road.

I think the problem, in some ways like with the music industry, once you agree to the EULA, there is no trust that the user will follow it. Hence the obtrusive DRM is employed. In the music industry, they were afraid that people were infringing on the copyright laws even though the CD case has the warning label. It's a failed system--the music industry has evolved and so should the gaming industry.

And GOG is in position to capitalize upon this transition. BUY GOG STOCKS!

Jdiamant2, as the previous poster mentioned, that is not true. EULA are not recognized as legl binding contracts, due to the aforementioned power differential among other factors. EULAS have been,and are often struck down if they are deemed to be deceitful, intrusive, or heavy handed.

It's like stores that ask to see you receipt as you exit...most people willdisplay theirs, as they accept the clerk at the door as an authority figure. This is not law, and (as I do) a customer can simply ignore the request. In the case of software, if a EULA has not beeen made completely transarent to you before purchase, you have the right to a full refund for the product.

I think my point is being missed here.

Here's what I've been trying to impart (and apparently failing miserably at doing so) on this board:

1. You are legally allowed to make a copy for BACKUP or ARCHIVAL purposes (so long as you own the ORIGINAL copy).

2. You can also give or resell the ORIGINAL copy (but then must discard any copies you made for yourself).

3. What you CAN'T do is make a copy and then give or sell that copy to someone else. Likewise, you can't keep a copy and give or sell the original.

If you give away or sell the original copy, you are thereby transferring your license to someone else. Of course, there's no real way to enforce this beyond DRM or simply hoping that people will actually listen.

As for the whole EULA debate...

How well a EULA stands up in court often depends on the court itself. As previously said, several states don't see them as binding, but others do. I suppose your options (as far as obeying or disobeying it goes) depend on whatever legal precedent is followed in your state.

Indeed. And copy protection on discs often prevents you from doing the first, and DRM often prevents the second.

Unless I've been extremely hard of reading, who has said anything otherwise?

In my experience, when gamers talk about giving or selling their game to someone else, they usually mean they'll keep a copy for themselves or give away/sell the copy. I've yet to come across someone who actually means they'll get rid of any copies they own when giving away or selling their original version.

Ah, I see. Well, you have now :-)

But customers still have, or should have, some rights, even if we are talking about entertainment products.

So, you are right that it is useless to demand "Damn it, you must publish Red Dead Redemption on PC too, we PC gamers have right to play it too!". Of course PC gamers have no such right, if you want the game, you buy it for a console.

But, for example, if you are blocked from accessing any of the games you bought for $1000 just because you said the wrong word in the game service forum or there was some hassle with the latest $5 game purchase you made in the same service, then obviously you should have at least some rights to those $1000 you used on the service. At least a partial refund if nothing else, even if the EULA states the opposite. At least to me this is just common sense.

It would be different if we were talking about a (gaming) service where you don't purchase any titles, but just pay e.g. a monthly payment in order to access the full game library. A bit like how you can play any music on the Spotify Premium, it is quite clear in the service that you are just paying monthly for accessing the full Spotify music collection, you didn't buy any music tracks from the system (or that's at least how I understand Spotify works). Or, if you have paid for cable TV, you can watch any movies they'll show for the monthly price.

In those cases, if they decide to end your contract, it is understandable you will have no access to their service anymore after the contract ends, and you will not get any refunds either since you are not paying for the service anymore after that. But, if there is a long service outage when you are still paying for the service, then you might be entitled to some kind of refund.

I think the whole "gaming as a service" concept is still forming and that's why there are clashing ideas what you are entitled to, and what should be the purchasing model. Currently the problem is that the publishers think they can get away with acting as if they are selling goods to you (item by item), but still they can treat it as a service where you can be blocked from accessing any of the purchased items for any reason or even without a reason, without any consequences to the publisher.

Wut? In the past, I've sold or given many (CD/DVD) games that I haven't considered keepers to either friends or retail shops, without keeping a local copy. Same what I've done with e.g. many DVD movies I've bought, but later got bored of.

I can accept though that this isn't permitted(?) with digital services like GOG for two reasons:

- Too easy to break the rule because there isn't anything blocking you from keeping 100% perfect copies to yourself.

- So far the price point has been so low that there's no case of "I should be able to sell my old GOG games to others in order to recoup money to buy other GOG games", something which was true for 50€ games when I was younger.

And frankly, I don't even have any friends who'd be willing to get 10-20 years old PC games from me, even for free. :)

In this context (20 "newer" titles) this thread looks like a thunderstorm in a teacup. This should not affect the focus on "old" games, and will be great to have some newer titles available DRM free. As long as GOG continues to go after the other big publishers and keep the classics coming, I am all for it.

It's just the beginning ... 20 1-3 year newer games for 2012, so 2 per month.
Probably in 2013 there'll be much much more, at least double.
So it's a good thing.

Here's hoping for Dawn of War: The Complete Collection (I know, I know, THQ isn't in yet...)

As a GOG customer, I totally support this expansion.

Newest games without DRM? Fully patched? Flat price worldwide (this is really important)? Extras? HELL YEAH, release the new games already GOG! :)

Also, EA expansions dammit.

Not gonna look at the 24 pages, but gonna leave my feedback:

- New games?
I have Steam and D2D for that (between many other choises), i really don't need to split up evan more, the reason i use GOG is because its about OLD games, and between you and me "don't think about us as Good Old Games?" Sorry, you ARE Good Old Games, not another mainstream digital new games distributor.

Dunno about many people, but i'm still waiting for wonderful titles to reach GOG like the Thief series, B-Hunter, Duke Nuken 1 and 2, etc. the list really goes on.

- Flat prices:
More than $9.99 isn't a flat price anymore, not evan for newer games.


Instead of focusing into expanding your list, try to actually stick to your core and name, and bring us more and more OLD titles that are long lost due to being discontinued, not working on our machines, etc.

That doesn't speak very highly of the gamers you know. :(

I don't get it. If they're that prone to piracy, why'd they buy it in the first place?