Oh wow that is some great dodgy pricing! :)

Sorry, but I still don't get it... Does this mean that I can still buy as many gift codes as I want (=more than 5 per day) but that my gift codes get "blocked" (for one day) after 5 codes were redeemed? Or how does this work exactly?

I just noticed this: the quote above says "5 copies of each game". The user agreement doesn't mention the word "each".

That's a very important difference, though: the user agreement suggests "5 gift orders per day", the post suggests "unlimited gift orders per day, but each game may only appear in 5 orders per day".

So, which is correct?

I would expect that the User Agreement is the only legally binding text.


I know it's too late, but I must say that I expected the updated versions of the documents to reflect more of the points that were addressed in the this thread, I might be wrong, but it appears that GOG took a couple of suggestions that better cover their own arse and made the related revisions. Since this thread isn't legally binding, and given that it will soon lose its sticky status (just like the thread about the GOG Downloader support did), where does this leave us users?

One very disturbing thing was noticed in the user agreement: That's very much DRM-like and usually is an indicator of anticircumvention restrictions. With recent addition of passwords to RAR packages in the installer it starts looking very grim. Can you please comment on the direction all this is taking?

GOG benefited in the past from reverse engineering, tinkering with games and figuring unexpected ways to run them. Now you forbid that in the user agreement. Come on! Judging from that users can't even figure out ways to unpack packages on Linux if they don't work in Wine (because now it involves bypassing a password). Is that's what you wanted for your service??

You know perfectly well that laws in many countries are corrupted and include DMCA-1201 like restrictions which forbid even fair use DRM breaking (i.e. when there is no copyright infringement involved). So your phrase "unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country" is not really helping anything. You could write "unless it's fair use and you aren't intending it for copyright infringement" or anything like that. That would be in line with remaining DRM-free.

Totally agree on that! Anyways, it´s important that we don´t overreact---this isn´t the same as introducing DRM. Especially that reverse engineering part is totally all-right to add at this point, but the other parts?
I´m really not sure about how to treat them! Maybe there ARE good reasons on those, but GOG has to state their opinions FIRST!

Just a week ago I would probably have thought the same, but now I strongly disagree.

I made a more detailed post here, please feel free to comment. I'll add a wishlist entry as well shortly.

I added a wishlist entry here.

This is a serious concern for me as well.

The reasons why I don't use Steam are:
1) Technical measures to mess with my ability to use my purchases
2) EULA/TOS language attempting to limit my rights with my purchases
3) Account consequences for breaking the EULA/TOS

GOG used to not be a problem on any point. Now it only passes #1. I don't buy games from GOG so that I can break the TOS to play them. I can get that with any other service, and often for a cheaper price. I buy games from GOG so that I can purchase from a store that actually meets my needs as as customer. I purchase from GOG so that I don't have that squirrelly feeling from needing to look stuff up on forums and know that I'm breaking an agreement to get the product I want. This change removes that, so I might as well shop around and get the best deal. It removes something that differentiated GOG from other services.

TL;DR This change puts GOG at exactly the same level as other 'DRM-free' services like GamersGate where I sometimes have to mess around outside the TOS to get games as I want them. If GOG isn't providing a different enough service, why should I buy here instead of a cheaper competitor?

The newer multi-part installers don't even pass that. You might not feel it while you are able and willing to run the pre-approved installers, but it turned out that gog has placed digital restrictions on them that required reverse-engineering and disassembly to circumvent, measures that will be explicitly forbidden by the next TOS.

The wishlist entry to kindly stop doing that is here.

So if we reverse engineer games with no commercial purpose (free mods), it should be under fair use right? We do not need to ask the publisher permission which most likely is a negative?

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I gathered, such reverse engineering should be fine. It's fair use since it's not intended for copyright infringement but rather for legitimate usage, so you wouldn't normally need to ask any permission for it. However if EULA/TOS explicitly forbids it, you might trigger contractual violation issues and it can complicate things (how much fair use stands against contract which tries to take away your rights is somewhat unclear).

Some in depth reading if you are up to it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Binary_software
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise25.html
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/200_ay258cck.pdf (1575–1663)

However, as others already noted, fair use regulation in copyright law can be different in different countries, so you'd need more in depth research if you are asking about particular region. In general if it's affecting you in some serious way (let's say you distribute mods and expect some company to be upset about it), it's better to get some solid legal consultation on this.

So wait. Does this mean we can't alter the .conf files that comes with all the DOS games in the near future?