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

×
Community
General discussionDoes the User Agreement intentionally disallow modding?(13 posts)solved(13 posts)solved
(13 posts)solved
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Posted September 30, 2020
The GOG.COM User Agreement says
"Regarding GOG content, what you can do practically (which includes to modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of it) depends on what the GOG content rights holder allows you to do[...]"

This makes it sound like GOG users are allowed to make mods for some games but not others. On the other hand, the agreement also says
"Do not create, use, make available and/or distribute cheats, exploits, automation software, robots, bots, mods, hacks, spiders, spyware, cheats, scripts, trainers, extraction tools or other software that interact with or affect GOG services or GOG content in any way[...]"

I understand that GOG doesn't want users to cause others to have a bad time in multiplayer games, but I think that this provision goes a little bit too far. If I buy Doom 2 from GOG, am I not allowed to make Doom 2 mods? That doesn't seem like what GOG intends.
Post edited September 30, 2020 by Jayman2000
This question / problem has been solved by clarryimage
Posted September 30, 2020
I agree, I've complained about it multiple times but nobody gives a shit.

I don't think they wrote the agreement by accident though.

I keep violating GOG's agreement.

EDIT: here's my latest infraction. (Regardless of what the agreement says, reverse engineering for compatibility purposes is legal in my country, but I'll keep modding too TYVM)
https://www.gog.com/forum/painkiller_series/if_painkiller_crashes_immediately_at_startup_try_rebooting

Screw that agreement.
Post edited September 30, 2020 by clarry
Posted September 30, 2020
I would say that is more aimed at affecting the store, forum, multiplayer and that aspect. They have no authority over how you use a product once you own it, in fact those kinds of terms and conditions are more for legal standing and IP protection than anything else. You are fine to mod games. What you can’t do is distribute or claim as your own any of the source engine code or assets, they remain the IP of the developer.

I would not worry about it. It does happen, Nintendo are quite a proponent of it, that a mod gets taken down by the IP owner, but in most cases you are fine.
Posted September 30, 2020
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: I would say that is more aimed at affecting the store, forum, multiplayer and that aspect.
If that's the case, then I wish that they would say that explicitly.
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: They have no authority over how you use a product once you own it,
I guess you're right. The only thing that's really specified as a potential consequence in the agreement is
"If you materially breach this Agreement, we reserve the right to suspend or cancel your access to GOG services and GOG content."

To me, that doesn't mean that they can make me delete games from my computer. They can definitely stop me from downloading them, though.
Posted September 30, 2020
I'm sure that all those mod spotlights were totally not recommended by GOG.
Posted September 30, 2020
I think that's more the typical abusive type of modding; going beyond the kit and API that the devs may give you access to; sawing open the EXE or DLL hacks.
Posted September 30, 2020
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: I would say that is more aimed at affecting the store, forum, multiplayer and that aspect.
But you don't read contracts like that. I mean yeah, I know a lot of people do, they sign the wildest of agreements and when they question it, someone's gonna say "oh that's just the usual, everyone does it." Which is fine, until someone actually decides to enforce it. When it comes to that, it doesn't matter what you thought or hoped they meant when they literally say something else. Unless you want to lose :P

They have no authority
That's up to courts to decide. I don't see why the agreement should be void, though it is possible that some clauses wouldn't hold up (see also my right to reverse engineer).
Nintendo are quite a proponent of it, that a mod gets taken down by the IP owner, but in most cases you are fine.
That's why there's no need for GOG to have clauses like this. The IP owner can already enforce their nonsense, so there's no need for GOG to pile on top of it and add the threat of suspending your account.
The only thing that's really specified as a potential consequence in the agreement is
"If you materially breach this Agreement, we reserve the right to suspend or cancel your access to GOG services and GOG content."
Yeah, I think stuff like this sets a really bad precedent. Like, how in the US, if they want to screw with someone, they just need a cop to follow them around a bit while they're driving, since you're almost guaranteed to make a mistake and violate some traffic law at one point or another.

I think it's unfair to have agreements with such overly broad clauses that almost everyone's going to violate at some point.
Posted September 30, 2020
avatar
Jayman2000:
Come on, what's so confusing? You're specifically told you're allowed to mod in your first quote, assuming the right holders don't forbid it.

The second quote is about intercepting data sent/received or tracked by GOG and/or games themselves. You have conveniently removed the part of that section which gives context to the whole quote.
Posted September 30, 2020
avatar
Darvond: I think that's more the typical abusive type of modding; going beyond the kit and API that the devs may give you access to; sawing open the EXE or DLL hacks.
Yeah it'd be a shame if someone invented DEH (or Boom) and all the Doom mods that followed. In many cases messing with exes and dlls is the only way to fix something for real. I don't see why mods and fixes should be blessed by some developer's lousy kit that might not even exist.
avatar
InkPanther: The second quote is about intercepting data sent/received or tracked by GOG and/or games themselves. You have conveniently removed the part of that section which gives context to the whole quote.
Let's see it in whole.

(e) Do not create, use, make available and/or distribute cheats, exploits, automation software, robots, bots, mods, hacks, spiders, spyware, cheats, scripts, trainers, extraction tools or other software that interact with or affect GOG services or GOG content in any way (including, without limitation, any unauthorised third party programs that intercept, emulate, or redirect any communication between GOG or its partners and GOG services and/or any unauthorised third party programs that collect information about GOG Services).
Emphasis on the bold part. Mods interact with games (which is what "GOG content" is defined to include) in many ways. The parenthetical does not override that sentence, it expands the clause to cover even more stuff (in case someone thought the initial list of forbidden things does not cover unauthorized third party programs that intercept comms).
Post edited September 30, 2020 by clarry
Posted September 30, 2020
avatar
Darvond: I think that's more the typical abusive type of modding; going beyond the kit and API that the devs may give you access to; sawing open the EXE or DLL hacks.
avatar
clarry: Yeah it'd be a shame if someone invented DEH (or Boom) and all the Doom mods that followed. In many cases messing with exes and dlls is the only way to fix something for real. I don't see why mods and fixes should be blessed by some developer's lousy kit that might not even exist.
You know, and I know, it's nothing but a bunch of legal riffraff put up by executives, egomaniacs, and lawyers who are too afraid you'd make something better of their products.
Posted September 30, 2020
avatar
clarry:
The policy unequivocally deals with modding games in the first quote from (b). Of course you can choose to ignore it and say that section addressing a different aspect is about the same thing, and that it's contradicting earlier statement. But that's up to you.
Posted September 30, 2020
avatar
Jayman2000:
avatar
InkPanther: Come on, what's so confusing?
I don't think that any of this stuff is confusing. I just suspect that the letter of the agreement doesn't line up with what GOG intended.
avatar
InkPanther: The second quote is about intercepting data sent/received or tracked by GOG and/or games themselves. You have conveniently removed the part of that section which gives context to the whole quote.
I disagree. I removed part of that sentence because it made the sentence longer and more confusing. Let's take a look at that part of the sentence (and a little extra, for context):
"[...]or other software that interact with or affect GOG services or GOG content in any way (including, without limitation, any unauthorised third party programs that intercept, emulate, or redirect any communication between GOG or its partners and GOG services and/or any unauthorised third party programs that collect information about GOG Services)."

The words "including, without limitation" mean that, while "third party programs that intercept, emulate, or redirect any communication between GOG or its partners and GOG services" fall under the umbrella of "other software that interact with or affect GOG services or GOG content in any way", those programs are not the only pieces of software that fall under that umbrella. In other words, "intercepting data sent/received or tracked by GOG and/or games themselves" isn't the only thing that paragraph (e) prohibits.

avatar
InkPanther: [...]that it's contradicting earlier statement.
That's my main critique of the User Agreement. It seems to contradict it self.
Post edited September 30, 2020 by Jayman2000
Posted September 30, 2020
avatar
InkPanther: The policy unequivocally deals with modding games in the first quote from (b).
Nah, it is possible and indeed very common for agreements to contain multiple separate clauses concerning the same thing. Sometimes to inform, sometimes to clarify, sometimes to add exceptions or alternative arrangements, etcetra.

(b) is just informative handwaving and doesn't really add anything binding to the agreement. "What you can do practically blah blah blah depends on blah blah blah so go check elsewhere." It just informs you that the copyright holder has exclusive rights to certain things (supposing the reader does not understand copyright law) so you should check with them if you care about these rights. So for example, if I want to release a derivative work of a game, I have to check with the copyright holder, GOG can't help me with that. The last sentence of (b) ("We also ask that you") could be interpreted as being binding but it's so vague that someone would quite possibly get laughed out of court if there was animosity regarding whether your new thingathong is a "genuine attempt to improve GOG content."

They could just stop there and it'd be fine, but having that informative clause does not at all contradict or prevent GOG from adding an additional binding clause (e) of their own that explicitly forbids doing certain things. For example, while a copyright holder might not give two shits about you cheating or using exploits, GOG might want to reserve themselves the right to suspend cheaters' accounts. That is exactly what (e) achieves, except it's also a wide blanket ban on a bunch more stuff, not just cheating. Anything GOG could ever want to prevent you from doing with games, here we go, we reserve the right to suspend your account if you dare do that. It's just the agreement between you and GOG and it doesn't even try to say anything about copyright law or intellectual property rights, so it's not at all contradictory with (b).

avatar
Jayman2000: That's my main critique of the User Agreement. It seems to contradict it self.
See explanation above. GOG created a list of things and behaviors that they might find objectionable, and reserved themselves the right to suspend your service if you do these things. This doesn't contradict the fact that you have to check with the copyright holder if you want to (say) create derivative works of a game.

Maybe they wanted to cover all bases in case there's ever a dispute with someone who (say) ruins multiplayer games... "no no it's not a cheat! it's not an exploit! it's a trainer! no it's a mod! no it's a script! no it's a proxy! just a program dude!" GOG: banhammer. I don't think they had to resolve it by de-facto banning everything but I suppose this is one way.. what can you do when companies power trip on their ability to set terms of service and poor users have no choice but to suck it or leave?
Post edited September 30, 2020 by clarry
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionDoes the User Agreement intentionally disallow modding?(13 posts)solved(13 posts)solved
(13 posts)solved