What do you mean? Movies?
Or the not so recent inclusion of indie and AAA games - not being "good old games" anymore?

Do you think the Disney/LA deal had been possible with the "good old gog"?

aye - going into other markets like new games, indie games and movies. It is all for growth.

And yes, I can actually see LA games on here even earlier if gOg only stayed focused on classic games. That's why speculation on growth or not is a false argument, because we will never know. I could argue that if gOg staied as the go-to classic gaming site and expanding into those other markets, it would be recognized as a specialist store where, for example, LA and other would not only like to sell their own classics, but want to. But at the moment, gOg lacks a clear identity through the rapid expansion, and it will therefore be more difficult for them to see their classic games sold here.

So a big/growing store (like GOG) will get more and more anti-consumer to protect itself is what you're saying.

I probably agree with that. I've been wondering how they're going to battle the grey market resellers when GOG starts getting bigger. 5 gifts per day is only the start of it most likely. It's not uncommon for those marketeers to simply have a long list of accounts to buy more games with.

Then you get restricting the same payment methods to only a couple of accounts before disallowing use. GEOIP blocking regional purchases so you can only purchase from your own region. (VPN counters that hence the 'request' against VPN use in the new policy). Then requiring VPN to activate the key from certain regions, etc etc. We've seen the cycle already with other retailers.

Exactly! This is what so many GOG account holders don't seem to understand. I also don't like the fact that those of us that have GOG accounts aren't going to be grandfathered and exempt from this new policy change. It is NEVER in the interest of the customers when a company changes the rules in the middle of the game.

I realize everyone has their 'we are free to make changes to our policy or agreement with you at any time' clauses, but that's more or less just a legal cop out and a legal way of basically saying 'we don't care what we agreed to when you became our customer, we are changing things now, so tuff luck'.

We will never know. I think up until a year or so ago for a big money company like Disney GOG was just that "little company from Poland", not really worthy of attention.

I agree on lacking a bit of identity. The DRM-free approach is certainly a big factor, and there's still "good old games" once in a while. Other than that GOG could use a more defined image. Somehow the new grey design really reflects the "grey area" they are currently in.

1) "but if it isn't upheld legally, then that means that there's something in the legal papers that ISN'T in the plain english version."
This isn't true. While there MAY be something present in the legal version that isn't in the plain version, the fact that there is a non-binding version does not mean there HAS TO be something missing ("may" != "has to", a vital difference in many settings). I've had life issues to deal with, so I still haven't compared the two versions. Honest question: Is there anything that is actually missing from the plain version?

2) They might not be able to have different customers on different versions of the privacy policy (ignoring entirely the potential costs in trying to maintain multiple policies). As I understand things, legal issues start cropping up when you start crossing borders.

3) My personal translation for "we are free to make changes to our policy or agreement with you at any time" has been "We reserve the right to change this in case something comes up." Changing policies like this creates costs in worker time (those lawyers could be doing other things) and user excitement ("Why are they changing things that should never need changing?"). If a company could never change a policy, then something as simple as a new legal requirement would cause all sorts of headaches (and legal costs as leechers try to capitalize on the conflict).

(The AAA part is debatable, unfortunately; even with regional pricing I don't think we're seeing what they suggested we would, at least currently - big-name AAA titles.)

Makes you wonder what other sacrifices will need to be made to attract bigger publishers since it doesn't seem like the regional pricing sacrifice is working. GoG will comeback and point to Lucasfilm/Disney but I think when the announcement was made users expected more new/day one releases (not just small indie devs). That hasn't happened yet.

i think the issue is that they are calling the right column the "english version", thereby implying that there are two versions of the agreement. Which is obviously not the case. They should call it instead "explanation" or whatever.
Would that help to remove your confusion?

btw the text explicitly says that the right column is there to help you better understand the legal text. It does not say you can read just that version _instead_ of the other.

So if you have to read both versions, then why not just post the one that is legally binding, instead of both versions, since that's the one you have to read and abide by anyway?

It doesn't make sense to say 'here is a version that is easy to understand, but you still have to read and understand the legalese version'. That's basically what you say GOG is saying, but GOG themselves are saying the opposite.

They are saying that all you have to do is read their version and just take their word for it that they are telling you everything, exactly that is in the legalese version, while they are changing the rules in the middle of the game. Yeah, right.

Personally, I believe what you are saying about having to read and understand both versions (even though most of us won't be able to understand the legalese version) is far more prudent advice than just reading the easy to understand side notes and take GOG's word for it that their version would translate into the exact same thing legally as the legalese version, if push came to shove.

no, thats not what i was trying to say.
My understanding was like this:
here is the new agreement (left column). If you have trouble understanding it, we put some extra comments in the right column to help you better understand the left side.

All right, read the agreement again and have to come back to a few things:

3.2 Would still like to see some clarification about the public profiles, what they'll include and how will they be implemented (mainly: site or Galaxy only? would be nice if (also) on site, as it'd be irrelevant to me if Galaxy only...). Not something that needs to be in the agreement, but would just like some answers. If they were already provided in this thread, sorry, could I have a link?

3.3 The fact that the gift limit applies to 5 copies of the same game or movie per day, not 5 total per day, absolutely needs to be specified in the agreement if that is indeed the case. A forum post somewhere is not legally binding, the agreement is.

6.3 I find it rather suspicious to include that part about having to pay a conversion fee there before mentioning banks. Makes it sound like GOG may charge such a fee, not the payment operator. Is that the idea?

6.4-6.6 Just grumbling. Ok, more like raging.

6.11 How/when are store credit and bonus codes deemed unclaimed property?

7.1 Mentioning removing features is never a good thing...

17.2 Still find it suspicious that US citizens get special status and a different jurisdiction. More so with the regional pricing issue and the US price standard applied there. Considering the slippery slope that's been on for the past year, excuse me for being extremely wary.

18.4-18.5 While standard in all such agreements, such provisions can mean pretty much anything and are even more concerning when you take into account what's going on with so-called "anti-terrorism" (or more commonly "Big Brother") laws in the world and what's going on with more and more market sectors, where a small number of large corporations tend to either purchase whatever they can and bankrupt the rest.

I asked this before under the old agreement, but I'd like to see it clarified in the new one.

When purchasing some games, Avatar images are provided as bonus content. What can we use those Avatar images for? Can we use them as our avatar image on non-GOG.com forums? I believe that under US Law that would be considered redistributing those images to anyone who views such an avatar (their browser has to download the image after all). As such do we have the right to do that?

IANAL, but wouldn't that fall under "fair use"? You're not trying to make money using these avatars, right?

I'm not making a profit from it, no. But that alone is not enough to fall under the "fair use" exception.

According to the U.S. Copyright Office four factors need to be considered when determining whether a use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

If I use the avatar image on a forum, I'm using the complete image, not a portion. In addition, I would be using it as a avatar image; a use which could arguably dilute the value of the copyrighted work.

In the absence of any explicit licensing, I could easily see a publisher winning a copyright case against someone using their images as an online avatar. An explicit license covering the use of avatar images would clear up the issue and give customers guidance on allowed uses of these works. It would also (if used in accordance with the license) give them a viable defense against DCMA takedowns and lawsuits regarding these works.

EDIT: I am also not a lawyer. I did however have uses and limitations of the doctrine of fair use pounded into my head by a lawyer while attending college. They wanted to make darn sure none of their students infringed unintentionally.