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
Time4Tea: Honestly, this is such an inane discussion, it's almost beyond belief that we're having it.
Let us know if you think it derails the thread too much.

But clearly this principle isn't obvious to everyone, so I figured it deserves a clear explanation.
avatar
Time4Tea: Honestly, this is such an inane discussion, it's almost beyond belief that we're having it.
avatar
Hexchild: Let us know if you think it derails the thread too much.

But clearly this principle isn't obvious to everyone, so I figured it deserves a clear explanation.
No, I think it's relevant. It's just that ... if it isn't blindingly obvious to some people that a store has a responsibility for the products they are selling, I'm not sure what we can do help them tbh.
low rated
avatar
Time4Tea: Honestly, this is such an inane discussion, it's almost beyond belief that we're having it.
Who gets to decide what is an "inane discussion" or what isn't? *thinking emoji*
low rated
avatar
Time4Tea: Honestly, this is such an inane discussion, it's almost beyond belief that we're having it.
avatar
tfishell: Who gets to decide what is an "inane discussion" or what isn't? *thinking emoji*
Well, in my opinion it's a inane discussion, being driven by a likely troll. I'm not stopping anyone though, who feels differently.
avatar
Time4Tea: Honestly, this is such an inane discussion, it's almost beyond belief that we're having it.
avatar
tfishell: Who gets to decide what is an "inane discussion" or what isn't? *thinking emoji*
Tsk, isn't it obvious? It's the sweat-stained, pizza-encrusted, unshaven slob sitting in his Batcave with a bank of computers running downvoting scripts on GOG forums. ;)
low rated
avatar
tfishell: Who gets to decide what is an "inane discussion" or what isn't? *thinking emoji*
avatar
AstralWanderer: Tsk, isn't it obvious? It's the sweat-stained, pizza-encrusted, unshaven slob sitting in his Batcave with a bank of computers running downvoting scripts on GOG forums. ;)
Well, crap :-/
avatar
AstralWanderer: In this case, it's your fault.

If you had advertised and provided your burgers as "DRM free" then you should have ensured that all your supplier contracts included the same requirement. Then if a supplier tried to "DRM" a condiment or other component, you would then be able to remove their products from your store and sue them for breach of contract.

The situation you describe could only occur due to lack of diligence on your part in drawing up supplier contracts, hence it would be your reponsibility to resolve it.
avatar
wolfsite: But if the condiment falls outside of the original contract there is nothing you can do, if you remove the items from your store you would be liable for the breach.
False again. If the 'condiment' DRM falls outside of the original contract, it is in your rights, as a store, to refuse to keep selling that product. The breach of contract lies with the supplier for supplying something harmful in their product, that is not part of that contract. ... But if you, as vendor, keep selling a product that contains a harmful condiment, then you are liable as well! You can't say: "Oh, but it was the supplier who put the glass shards into the condiment. I knew they were there, but I kept selling them. Still, it's not my fault!"

Or counter example: you operate a vegan restaurant, making a big point of being against the killing of animals and promising food that is free of animal products. Suddenly you start serving (meat) sausages and ham with your meals. You justify that by:
1) Hey! It's not as if the entire meal is made of meat. You can still get a full meal without eating meat. Just leave the sausages aside! ... So it's still vegan, right?
2) It wasn't us who killed those animals. It was some butcher. Not our responsibility. We are still totally against killing animals, we just sell the meat. We didn't produce it!

I repeat:
a) DRM-free means free of DRM. Not a 'low amount of DRM'. Not 'just a bit DRM'. It means completely free of DRM. Otherwise the term is a lie.
b) it is GOG's responsibility what they sell. Just like any other vendor is liable for what they sell.

When someone knowingly sells faulty wares, it is his decision and his fault. And that's what GOG does. They sell games now that are (in parts) defective by design.
low rated
avatar
Lifthrasil:
And I suppose if a cookie supplier to Whole Foods was to suddenly start putting marijuana in their cookies and Whole Foods kept selling them after they became aware, then Whole Foods would be completely innocent of any blame? "Oh, woops! It wasn't our fault ... our supplier did it ... what can we do?" /shrug

Good lord, rofl! XD
low rated
avatar
Lifthrasil: a) DRM-free means free of DRM. Not a 'low amount of DRM'. Not 'just a bit DRM'. It means completely free of DRM. Otherwise the term is a lie.
Maybe they have changed the definition, so now it is "Free for DRM." :shrug:

Haven't followed this closely, but it still isn't a lot of games, I would hope?
low rated
Boycott this thread. OP and posters in it take gaming waaaaay too seriously.
high rated
avatar
Cologno: Boycott this thread.
Yes, maybe you should.
high rated
avatar
Cologno: Boycott this thread. OP and posters in it take gaming waaaaay too seriously.
We're serious about DRM-free. After all, it is the core principle the GOG store was founded on and a large part of the reason it has been successful so far.
Just picked up this book in Skellige, while playing The Wild Hunt, don't know if it's aged that well. (see attached Pic)
Attachments:
gog.jpg (340 Kb)
low rated
avatar
wolfsite: if you signed a contract with the supplier and then the supplier created the new item afterwards that does not fall within the contract you can't really do much, you can't say I'm not selling your items anymore due to this new condiment because then the supplier can hold you in breach of contract which leaves you liable to damages to the supplier,
avatar
wolfsite: But if the condiment falls outside of the original contract there is nothing you can do, if you remove the items from your store you would be liable for the breach.
You must be ultra oblivious to not understand that in such case it's the supplier that broke the contract by changing the specification of the product (properly made contract should include the exact specification of a product to-be-supplied).

avatar
wolfsite: if the contract has an NDA in it then you can't even say anything about because again you would be violating terms you agreed to.
NDAs don't apply to specific types of business-related court cases.
You can 100% still sue the supplier for unauthorised change in suppplied products' specifications even if you are under an NDA.

avatar
wolfsite: Also if a store breaks a contract that can severely hurt them when trying to get a deal with another supplier as they would appear to be not a good partner to work with if they break contracts.
Or, you know, it shows that they (store) won't accept supplier getting away with unauthorised changes to a contract.
It shows that as a store owner you are well based and have some rules instead of letting your supplier be a hidden boss of your business by accepting "whatever your supplier does" "becuase he is the supplier".
You are the man in the middle.
As a store it's 100% your possibility to deny goods coming through.
If you wave your hands saying "my supplier changed the spec so there's nothing I can do" you are basically admitting to no longer being in control of your own store and the supplier being a "shadow boss" waving you around their fingers.

avatar
wolfsite: It all comes down to what is in the contract and if the contract covers future content or if one side or the other can prove that the extra content is covered by the original contract.
I'm sorry, but I just don't follow.
What "extra content not covered by contract" are you talking about?
If a truck (from your supplier) full of merchandise not falling under signed contract shows up at your warehouse, do you just "accept the extra merchandise"?
What are you? A mafia?

avatar
wolfsite: Unfortunately this part of the argument will just go completely into speculation as we do not have the contracts for these games and DLC so we don't know what has been agreed to, what is even worse is that many companies don't even see these cosmetic items as DLC in the standard term as some have started calling them "goodies" or "thank you gifts" and simply changing the terminology of the item can lead down a legal rabbit hole that can cause even more problems which frankly I hate as it shows how fragile the legal system can be when things come down to how the wording can be manipulated.
Well it would be certainly beyond idiotic if GOG would not have DRM related clauses in their contracts.
It would be a legendary level of satire.

avatar
Hexchild: Because from the customer's point of view, you still represent the supplier, so it all falls on you to drive the changes needed for sales to be possible. It's as simple as that.
avatar
wolfsite: Not in this case, the supplier has full control, and they have clearly stated they will only sell it directly, you have no control, you can even tell the customer that you have no say and you yourself are disappointed in this move, moving away from a burger analogy many publishers are quite famous for gating content to there exclusive website or store and have done so for years and it is widely known to the customer base, they have this reputation, yet despite that the store owner must take all the flake.
Even as a lowest effort "lowest liability" kind of store - a dropshipping service - you remain the man in the middle, and you have 100% chances of a veto.
You ALWAYS have a choice as a store owner.

As a store owner you have full control over what you accept from the supplier.
End of the story.
You are not forced into a deal - and no - "supplier arfiticial monopoly" does not clasify as "being forced".
As an owner of a store you are 100% choice-enabled to deny the supplier shenanigans.
You just say no to it - it's that simple.
You always have a choice.
Not having some stock is a choice as well.
Having "everything what industry offers" isn't always the best one.
Ingesting any industry patologies isn't the best way to go either.
So, "you either accept the mainstream or you cease to exist" is not only a huge lie but also just plain comical.
There's plenty of examples of both projects and businessess that don't abide to that rule yet stay afloat.
GOG doesn't have to accept unauthorised changes (introducing a DRM in an product update for example) to a contract.
They have all the choices of saying "no".
You don't agree with the supplier?
Then you just don't take their stock.
You just don't offer the stock to your customers.
It's THAT SIMPLE.
That of course, assumes that as a store owner you are able to stay faithful to your own vows and principles.
If you go as far as publicly announcing your sworn principles, no, even as far as creating dedicated info-mercial website designed specificly to mock your competition on basis of how "above" the problem you are, and then you ditch your principles - your reputation is toast - and you become no different from a black market merchant, a "store mercenary", that goes where money lies and has no concept of a book definition of a 'principle' or 'vow'.
high rated
avatar
Cologno: Boycott this thread. OP and posters in it take gaming waaaaay too seriously.
Everyone on GOG should take DRM-Free seriously. That's the whole point of GOG and if we lose that then it's no different from other stores, like EGS.