AO is unrestricted at 18 in US; R-rated movies at 17.

There does not appear to be any countries with a video game rating system where anything is limited above 18 (excluding titles that have been completely banned, of course).

For movies, there are 3 countries that have higher ratings (Singapore and Kazakhstan has 21; Thailand has 20).

The term "age of consent", BTW, refers to the age where people can legally have sex. You may have been thinking of age of majority :)

*blush* bad boy, what have I been thinking of again *blush*

yes you are right :)

If was actually thinking like of a game, which one was it, GTA 4?, with the mod for the coffee-scene, where big retailers took it of the shelves......

And by using the term age of majority they could avoid the use of numbers.
*still slapping myself* :)

thank you. this is somewhat reassuring.

i am ok with most stuff they seem the same as anywhere else

i hope gog adds in a option where i can opt out of any kind of data sharing to 3rd party or my activities being shared with 3rd party to be analyzed like a lab rat . i have opted out sharing on any site that provided the option and stopped using any site that forces it.

I'm just speculating here, but I suspect that the age requirements have more to do with laws around who may enter into valid contracts, rather than concerns about whether you are old enough to play the games they sell.

Paragraph 6.6 is specifically about using VPNs to "exploit" the regional pricing system - for example, by using a VPN to make it appear that you are in the lowest-priced region, buying up a bunch of cheaper game codes, and then selling them off on grey market sites at a profit. If you're just using VPNs for convenience and not to scam the system, then I doubt GOG cares about that. That said, I agree that the language in 6.6 is a little too vague, and could probably be tightened up by being a little more specific about when using a VPN amounts to "exploitation".

If you look at paragraph 1.1, you will see that "GOG content" refers to the movies and games that GOG sells. Obviously I don't know the details of GOG's contractual arrangements, but they are likely correct in saying that they do not own this content (they probably just have an agreement that allows them to distribute it). There may be some grey areas here - for example, GOG probably has IP rights in the code used to make their install wrapper - but it may not be a distinction worth covering in the Agreement, since I doubt many people are going to make "fan content" about the GOG-wrapper. (Of course, now that I've said that...)

as indicated above, I was talking of age of majority! allthough by rethinking with your post, this could still be a problem (consent and majority)

Agreed, but shall we first not assume innocense ?


But the wording is still making me laugh, as it clearly states: "the GOG content is the property of the respective owner, NOT GOG.com´s" and the paragraph is stating "Using GOG content in fan work"

So either they are talking about their own work, as you said gog wrapper, or they are talking about 3rd party work....

The part 1.1 is not contradicting this. Ether it is their intellectual property or not. If it is not, they will have to state this clearly. This is a contradiction. Saying GOG content is NOT GOG´s property is clearly wrong.

Better to say is a term like saying that the property rights needs to be checked with their corresponding owner.

Hence why I think it would be a good idea for GOG to clarify that 6.6 is not intended to capture all use of VPNs.

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying, but I think you are mistakenly assuming that the words "GOG content" mean "content that belongs to GOG". They don't. As defined in para. 1.1, "GOG content" essentially means "content that GOG sells", not "content that GOG owns".

absolutly agreed

"or other content, which you can purchase or access", which would include their own content.....the wording here is too ambiguous. That´s why I am laughing....it is mixing all together.....Sounds easy in 1.1, but not longer when talking about intellectual property, as in § 12

edit: let´s take a simply example: you would make a screenshot of a game off the gog-website, it is including 3rd party rights as well as gog-rights (even by the definition above), but it might have more than just those 2 parties involved, like having a user review embedded as well.......

you see why I am laughing?

And especially art is normally an expection: If you use something for art (non-living person and no property damage) you can more or less do what you want.......that´s art.......best example: mona lisa in different colours IS art AFAIK, I do remember vaguely a court trial about it :P.......

Hmm, fair catch - I expect "other content" is meant to refer to the extras you buy with the games, but you're right that "other content, which you can... access via GOG.com" is vague enough to refer to a number of other things.

one problem nowadays is, that we use words out of their original context and/or alter their meanings to adopt to new ideas, but people quite often have different meanings in mind.

That´s why their is legalese language in any language.

Just think of theory, tell me what you think:

edit: spelling mistakes

Yeah, this is one important question for me too! I only use Paysafe for paying in the internet. If I can`t pay with Paysafe, I won`t buy it. So, I hope gog will keep the opportunity to pay via Paysafecard.

You guys should read the whole paragraph and also the explaination at the side ;-)
it clearly says "Paypal or any other authorised payment provider", or like said in the summary part "or different local payment methods". The reason for that is probably that they can't name all the payment methods that only apply to some countries so they are put together under "other". :-)

I think they are determined to alienate us.

I suppose it is our fault really. We've supported them too much and now they have money to spend on lawyers.

They did give us time to voice our concerns. They did not go ahead, implement them and say that we should deal with it.

Oh, OK. Well so long as you don't have any privacy concerns regarding the site, I suppose you needn't bother yourself with any concerns others may have.
Opening policy to comment and operating transparently, while preferable to secrecy, do not guarantee the same level of regard for customers that GOG has previously shown.