It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
shmerl: That's false. From day one it was about Games + extras, not about GOG services and data.
avatar
Gersen: hedwards: Also, they can't change their terms for games that have already been sold wtihout giving us our money back. Contract changes like this are not legally enforceable unless there's a meeting of the minds.

Emphasis mine
All that is really irrelevant to the subject at hand. Please don't divert the topic.
avatar
shmerl: All that is really irrelevant to the subject at hand. Please don't divert the topic.
I was not answering to you but to him.
avatar
shmerl: All that is really irrelevant to the subject at hand. Please don't divert the topic.
avatar
Gersen: I was not answering to you but to him.
In three threads you tried to claim that GOG always had such restrictions on their service and nothing is going to change if new TOS is introduced. That's false.
Post edited January 02, 2015 by shmerl
avatar
shmerl: In three threads you tried to claim that GOG always had such restrictions on their service and nothing is going to change if new TOS is introduced. That's false.
No, I said that those restriction always where there in the game's EULA and that the installer, being part of the "software" mentioned in said EULA, is also covered by it.

I also said that despite that GoG never had any issues with mods, cheats, and other unofficial patches for said games.
Post edited January 02, 2015 by Gersen
avatar
Gersen: No, I said that those restriction always where there in the game's EULA and that the installer, being part of the "software" mentioned in said EULA, is also covered by it.
I don't see installer being part of it. Even if it is, this concern doesn't go anywhere, so proposing GOG to fix it remains all the same.
avatar
Gersen: I also said that despite that GoG never had any issues with mods, cheats, and other unofficial patches for said games.
then maybe you understand how that restriction is totally irritating for us users? GOG welcomes mods and other fan contributions with open arms and yet, again and again, they forbid exactly these kind of things.
How the hell should I make sense of that behaviour?
Post edited January 02, 2015 by immi101
avatar
immi101: then maybe you understand how that restriction is totally irritating for us users? GOG welcomes mods and other fan contributions with open arms and yet, again and again, they forbid exactly these kind things.
How the hell should I make sense of that behaviour?
Not "again and again", for games, this "restriction" was here since the very beginning of GoG. And it's not at all something "exceptional" most games including several Indy ones have a similar clause. And yet, apart from the recent Sega screw-up, you hardly hear any company going after modders or unofficial patches as it would be a PR suicide and more importantly they don't really have any real "benefit" in doing so. (they do go against trainers and cracks though).
avatar
immi101: then maybe you understand how that restriction is totally irritating for us users? GOG welcomes mods and other fan contributions with open arms and yet, again and again, they forbid exactly these kind things.
How the hell should I make sense of that behaviour?
avatar
Gersen: Not "again and again", for games, this "restriction" was here since the very beginning of GoG. And it's not at all something "exceptional" most games including several Indy ones have a similar clause. And yet, apart from the recent Sega screw-up, you hardly hear any company going after modders or unofficial patches as it would be a PR suicide and more importantly they don't really have any real "benefit" in doing so. (they do go against trainers and cracks though).
Except that it wasn't there in the sense that it's here now. I'm not sure how having the assets unprotected when they started and now apparently protecting it doesn't represent a change in policy. The term wasn't a big deal previously because they weren't employing technological measures to prevent it. You could take mods that were made previously and apply them to the games here.

Considering how hard they've pushed them over the years as a reason to buy here, it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend like the terms haven't change. They may not have changed the wording, but it's patently obvious to anybody with half a brain that the way that the words are being used has changed.
avatar
hedwards: Except that it wasn't there in the sense that it's here now. I'm not sure how having the assets unprotected when they started and now apparently protecting it doesn't represent a change in policy. The term wasn't a big deal previously because they weren't employing technological measures to prevent it. You could take mods that were made previously and apply them to the games here.
What are you talking about ?

You can take mods and apply them to game here exactly like before, you can create mods exactly like before, it doesn't change anything. There is no "protected assets", install the game and you have access to all the assets like before, there is technical measure preventing mods usage.

avatar
hedwards: Considering how hard they've pushed them over the years as a reason to buy here, it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend like the terms haven't change. They may not have changed the wording, but it's patently obvious to anybody with half a brain that the way that the words are being used has changed.
Again what are you talking about ? they haven't changed the games EULA at all and haven't taken any steps into making modding any harder.

Yes it takes an extra step to extract the files from the installer, a "feature" that never was supported/promoted/endorsed/etc... by GoG to begin with, yes it's an inconvenience to several users who were buying Windows games (i.e. not officially supported on Linux) to play them on Linux, but to call that a "patently obvious change of policy" or considering that GoG as suddenly become anti-mods is a pretty big stretch of the imagination.
Post edited January 03, 2015 by Gersen
avatar
Phaedrus567: Wow, this is a depressing way to start the new year...

Other users in this thread have done a very good job detailing the concerns of this change, but after having voted for the wishlist made my shmerl, I wanted to show my support against these package changes within the thread in a way other than saying "ditto, what they said".

I buy from GOG largely for the DRM-free position in their games.

After a while, I learned that the policies of GOG (the software packaging in question) allowed for a great deal of cross-platform gaming (another tenant of DRM-free in my opinion) with help from the community. Even though it wasn't officially supported, it was the kick I wanted to move from Windows to Linux as my primary OS (a change I don't regret).

As such, I threw my wallet behind GOG and now sit at 643 out of the current 888 offered with the goal of collecting them all.

I am also finally at a point where I spend my alloted gaming money primarily toward brand new games at full price instead of waiting for sales (to support the attractiveness of GOG to developers, and to further support developers).
The sad twist is that it sounds like I have to hold back further purchases because GOG may be yet another site where I feel the need to question what I'm actually getting from my purchases.

I still have trust that the GOG team will pull through and not harm the efforts of those who wish to try playing their games on other systems. But I am going to watch for news of this before I bring out my credit card for the time being.
The WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree, it is a bad way to start the new year with this news.

I have close to 700 games on GOG due to their DRM free policies, I even buy a big chunk of game that I most likely won't play to support GOG (never see the allure of adventure games, sucks on platforming twitch games) overspend in the sales.

I start migrating to linux with rouge legacy but it crash every 1/2 hour with the linux version, but the window version work like a charm. Hence I am thinking of wine to run the window version......

I will see how this goes before pulling out my wallet
avatar
Gnostic: I start migrating to linux with rouge legacy but it crash every 1/2 hour with the linux version, but the window version work like a charm. Hence I am thinking of wine to run the window version......
You might want to open a separate thread about that :-)

I play the native Linux version of Rogue Legacy all the time and it has been stable all along.
avatar
Gnostic: I start migrating to linux with rouge legacy but it crash every 1/2 hour with the linux version, but the window version work like a charm. Hence I am thinking of wine to run the window version......
avatar
Ganni1987: You might want to open a separate thread about that :-)

I play the native Linux version of Rogue Legacy all the time and it has been stable all along.
Same... with the caveat that, after working perfectly for who knows how long, it decided that my USB-PS2 bridge was Joystick 1 rather than my X-Box 360 controller.

(It only listens to Joystick 1, the button config for the PS2 controller is an unusable mess, and there's no way I can find to reconfigure it.)
avatar
ssokolow: (It only listens to Joystick 1, the button config for the PS2 controller is an unusable mess, and there's no way I can find to reconfigure it.)
Same here for a PS3 wired controller. =S

But returning to topic... I know that maybe some people will be on vacation in CD Projekt but someone who can discuss about this should be working. Or at least, post something like "We are aware of this, we'll discuss it in a few days".
Everyone posting here should go post about the TOS change in the TOS feedback thread. GOG generally doesn't pay attention to forum threads. Posting in official threads or sending in support tickets is the best way to get their attention.
avatar
Gilozard: Everyone posting here should go post about the TOS change in the TOS feedback thread.
Could you link to it? I can't find it.