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 discussionConclusion of the Fair Price Package program(910 posts)(910 posts)
(910 posts)
Pages:
1
10
20
30
31
32
33
34
35
50
61
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 26, 2019
On March 31st we are going to discontinue the Fair Price Package program. Let us explain the reasoning behind this decision.

We came up with Fair Price Package (FPP) as a way to make up the price difference between various countries. Some games on GOG.COM have regional pricing, meaning the price of the same game in one place can be higher compared to its price in North America. In countries where the game is more expensive, we give users the equivalent of the price difference in GOG Wallet funds. In actual numbers, on average, we give users back 12% of the game price from our own pocket. In some cases, this number can reach as high as 37%.

In the past, we were able to cover these extra costs from our cut and still turn a small profit. Unfortunately, this is not the case anymore. With an increasing share paid to developers, our cut gets smaller. However, we look at it, at the end of the day we are a store and need to make sure we sell games without a loss.

Removing FPP is not a decision we make lightly, but by making this change, we will be able to offer better conditions to game creators, which — in turn — will allow us to offer you more curated classic games and new releases. All DRM-free.

We wanted to make sure you have some lead time to still benefit from the Fair Price Package. The program will last until the 31st of March, 2019, so if you would like to take advantage of it, now is the time. The funds you gather from the program will keep the 12 months expiration date from the moment you’ve been granted your last funds.
Posted February 26, 2019
high rated
First of all, thank you for your support. This was not an easy decision to discontinue the FPP program and we're grateful to you for understanding the reasons behind it. We see that quite a few of you raised concerns about GOG's future. As a part of publicly traded company, we can't comment on any financial results until they are officially reported, but we want to ensure you everything is good with GOG. Being part of a big gaming company, some reports - especially some given by significant media outlets - can often sound much scarier than reality.

You've been also concerned about your access to the games you’ve purchased on GOG. We've covered this topic years ago and it's been in our User Agreement for a long time (please check the section 17.3). This is not only a legal obligation to you but a core part of our ethics as a company.

But don’t worry, all is good, and we have a great plan for the future of GOG. We can’t wait for you to see some of the exciting things we have coming very soon.

EDIT: pinned
Post edited February 26, 2019 by elcook
Posted February 27, 2019
Awful thing, because my most important reason for being here is soon gone.
Posted February 27, 2019
avatar
Zoidberg: Sorry but it was never "stolen from us" as we never had the ownership of our games.
Check your manuals from games sold in the 80s/90s.
avatar
SPTX: That's the theory, but you know damn right EULAs have no legal basis. You could even make a case that they are blatantly illegal contracts since :
1. you can't access them before buying the product
2. you don't have to read/sign them
3. they(some) are stripping you off the fundamental right of property
Not to mention it is often just a play of words to make you believe you don't own the game when in fact they talk about the license (the ability to make money using the namesake).

Wake up.
You never owned a game, just like you never own a record or movie. You own the license for a copy of it and you own the fysical item that's carrying it.
If you owned it, you could make more copies and sell it legally.

EULAs have no legal base in Europe. They're actually legal and binding in the US and perhaps in some other countries as well.
In the EU there have been court rulings stating that they're not legal. I know 2 specific reasons:
1. Not being able to access them before buying. Not being able to use the product without agreeing. In some cases even not being able to read them without agreeing to them first
2. Being in clear violation with a lot of EU consumer laws.


As for the intel they may make many users happy:
Might we be getting the Dune games?
See this and Funcom's [url=https://investors.funcom.com/funcoms-fourth-quarter-2018-financials/]site.
Posted February 27, 2019
avatar
SPTX: .....
avatar
rjbuffchix: Hits the nail on the head, I could not agree more. It is an unpleasant truth that people don't want to believe, in part because many were unwittingly complicit in not boycotting, not going against it. Everyone is quick to declare the death of physical media but leave out the fact that it is these corporations actively taking away the purchasing option to re-frame purchases into rentals that they themselves control. There is still a great demand for old games and still a great demand for physical media, if pivoted the right way and (now) introduced to new audiences. The problem is that people are simply not given the option. We see the same phenomenon with game genres all the time..."no one in this day and age would buy a turn-based RPG/a survival horror game/a collectathon"...until they do.

...
...
...
Also agreed. I still actively try to hunt down physical copies games (must contain discs, I don't buy boxes that have just codes in them) on Amazon/local stores/anywhere possible instead of buying a purely digital product. It is the first thing I look for when wanting to buy a game. Then GOG, then torrents. It is also funny that a lot of the times, I can find a boxed version of a game MUCH cheaper than on any digital distribution platform.

avatar
Pheace: EU has VAT included in the price though, US is pre- sales tax. We do pay more but that's because of our own taxes and after calculating the currency exchange a publisher actually makes less off us than a US sale (since currency diff is less than the tax)
avatar
Cavalary: VAT has nothing to do with it, and that has been established long ago. Some publishers tried to use it as the justification but it doesn't hold water, and even if it did you can take it as the cost of doing business in the EU, same as apparently the cost of doing business with digital stuff in Russia is giving them a 70% discount. And for example Australia also has tax on digital content, but while other stores tend to have massive price hikes for AU, way more than the tax by the way, GOG for most games has discounts for AU, though, again, there is the tax, and they're definitely not poor.
For the EU it's just that ever since digital distribution became a thing, before GOG even launched, somebody apparently decided that 1 EUR = 1 USD and that became the norm, and one thing GOG specifically and firmly fought against... until they no longer did. ......
....
...
Exactly. It is the false notion that has irrevocably taken root world-wide, that 1€ = $1. And everybody is just rolling with it like everything's fine.
Posted February 27, 2019
high rated
avatar
SPTX: The ability to buy and OWN games in physical format was stolen from us.
avatar
Zoidberg: Sorry but it was never "stolen from us" as we never had the ownership of our games. Check your manuals from games sold in the 80s/90s.
I just went through several manuals from the 1990's including Age of Empires 1, Day of The Tentacle and Thief, and they say nothing whatsoever about not owning them. There's disclaimers about "we're not responsible for any loss / damage / personal injury from using this", that the manuals and games are copyrighted - but that doesn't mean that you don't own a copy of the manual / disc it came on, what it means is you don't own the IP that gives the right to redistribute or misuse it (eg, you don't own the game's art / audio assets and cannot reuse them in your own games or start selling photocopies of the manuals).

Whenever this "you've never owned x" subject comes up, people always get confused between the big difference between "you don't legally own a copy of the product you bought" (False) vs "you don't own the underlying Intellectual Property Rights used to create the product" (True).
Posted February 27, 2019
low rated
avatar
HertogJan: EULAs have no legal base in Europe.
Oh your first paragraph was doing so well.....and then...ugghhh........

The EULA is a contract. Just like any other contract.

The contract is legally binding no matter how much you want to pretend its not. now parts of it can be foudn to be in violation if they're written poorly

But an EULA cannot be 'illegal'. Because doing so means ALL CONTRACTS BY DEFINITION are illegal.
In the EU there have been court rulings stating that they're not legal. I know 2 specific reasons:
1. Not being able to access them before buying. Not being able to use the product without agreeing. In some cases even not being able to read them without agreeing to them first
2. Being in clear violation with a lot of EU consumer laws.
Dear god no that's not how you interpret that .....

Again lets go over the facts

1) EULA are contracts
2) contracts are legal
3) therefore EULA are legal

Now parties can argue over contract terms. Especially specific terms. They may interpet specfic parts of the contract differently and thus may go to court to assess what parts are or are not enforceable

In fact many high profile cases, Oracle vs UsedSoft, are in fact predecated on the fact that the EULA is a VALID contract. And then go into details as to what specific parts are ether uneforceable, etc.

This DOES NOT mean the EU thinks EULA are illegal. It DOES NOT mean EULA are illegal in the EU.
Posted February 27, 2019
avatar
AB2012: Whenever this "you've never owned x" subject comes up, people always get confused between the big difference between "you don't legally own a copy of the product you bought" (False) vs "you don't own the underlying Intellectual Property Rights used to create the product" (True).
So true. I still wonder how so many people can actually misunderstand such a simple concept.
Posted February 27, 2019
Never mind, I did a bit more clear thinking and here is my edited post now:

Thanks for offering FPP all this time, that really was awesome of you guys!
Personally, I don't think it will change much since i usually wait for a sale anyway prior to making a purchase and I don't feel like saving a minor amount by buying a Steam key (or similar) while sacrificing my DRM free purchase!
My buy order will remain as it was:
GOG (or other DRM free store) > HumbleBundle (if DRM free available) > great nothingness and feeling like being the bad guy for actually spending money on games only to get Denuvo and other cruelties forced upon me for actually paying for a game > "legitimate" Steam key stores > Steam sale > what's piracy? can you clean your rear end with that?
Post edited February 27, 2019 by Free4Live
Posted February 27, 2019
avatar
HertogJan: You never owned a game, just like you never own a record or movie. You own the license for a copy of it and you own the fysical item that's carrying it.
If you owned it, you could make more copies and sell it legally.
That's pretty much what I explained. It's a play of words. Of course when you buy a Ferrrari you don't own the name Ferrari, that would be bonkers, but you can't say you don't own a Ferrari and that would be silly to be legally bound to call it nothing else but a car. And you can do pretty much whatever you want with it except reproduce/sell patented material.

avatar
HertogJan: They're actually legal and binding in the US and perhaps in some other countries as well.
You're sure about that?
https://www.lawdepot.com/blog/what-makes-a-contract-invalid/

A void contract is null from the moment it was created and neither party is bound by the terms. Think of it as one that a court would never recognize or enforce because there are missing elements.
A contract can be void for the following reasons:
-The terms of the agreement are illegal or against public policy (unlawful consideration or object)
-A party was not of sound mind while signing the agreement
-A party was under the age of consent
-The terms are impossible
-The contract restricts the rights of a party
Alternatively, a voidable contract is valid and may be enforceable in certain situations if both parties agree to move forward. One party is bound to the terms of the contract, whereas the other party can oppose the contract for legal reasons if they so choose. Therefore if the unbound party rejects the contract, it becomes voidable.
A contract can become voidable under the following circumstances:
-A party was coerced or threatened into signing the agreement
-A party was under undue influence (one party is able to dominate the will of another)
-A party is not of sound mind or mentally competent (minor or mentally ill)
-The terms of the contract were breached
-Mutual mistakes on behalf of both parties
-The contract is fraudulent (omitting or falsifying facts or information, or the intention to not carry out the promise in the contract)
-Misrepresentation occurs (a false statement of fact)
I'd like to have a case of an EULA being disputed and settled in favour of the publisher before we can claim they are legal in the US. You know, a precedent.

And nevermind that the EULA is never actually signed. That alone speaks volumes.
Post edited February 27, 2019 by SPTX
Posted February 27, 2019
low rated
avatar
AB2012: Whenever this "you've never owned x" subject comes up, people always get confused between the big difference between "you don't legally own a copy of the product you bought" (False) vs "you don't own the underlying Intellectual Property Rights used to create the product" (True).
And thus the difference between "owning" the support and enjoying the use of the whole thing through a use contract.
Posted February 27, 2019
low rated
avatar
SPTX: I'd like to have a case of an EULA being disputed and settled in favour of the publisher before we can claim they are legal in the US. You know, a precedent.
Yeah because that's never happened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepcion

OH WAIT it did.

People claiming EULA are 'illegal' are functionally saying contracts are magically illegal. An EULA is a contract. EULA are not illegal. A contract is enforceable. An EULA is a contract. The EULA is enforceable contract.

You're free to dispute the contract terms. That doesnt make EULA 'illegal'

And nevermind that the EULA is never actually signed. That alone speaks volumes.
And you know somehow the Supreme Court didn't have a problem with that.
Post edited February 27, 2019 by satoru
Posted February 27, 2019
low rated
avatar
AB2012: Whenever this "you've never owned x" subject comes up, people always get confused between the big difference between "you don't legally own a copy of the product you bought" (False) vs "you don't own the underlying Intellectual Property Rights used to create the product" (True).
avatar
idbeholdME: So true. I still wonder how so many people can actually misunderstand such a simple concept.
You don't tell... *ROLLEYES*
Posted February 27, 2019
high rated
avatar
HertogJan: EULAs have no legal base in Europe.
avatar
satoru: Oh your first paragraph was doing so well.....and then...ugghhh........

The EULA is a contract. Just like any other contract.

The contract is legally binding no matter how much you want to pretend its not. now parts of it can be foudn to be in violation if they're written poorly

But an EULA cannot be 'illegal'. Because doing so means ALL CONTRACTS BY DEFINITION are illegal.

In the EU there have been court rulings stating that they're not legal. I know 2 specific reasons:
1. Not being able to access them before buying. Not being able to use the product without agreeing. In some cases even not being able to read them without agreeing to them first
2. Being in clear violation with a lot of EU consumer laws.
avatar
satoru: Dear god no that's not how you interpret that .....

Again lets go over the facts

1) EULA are contracts
2) contracts are legal
3) therefore EULA are legal

Now parties can argue over contract terms. Especially specific terms. They may interpet specfic parts of the contract differently and thus may go to court to assess what parts are or are not enforceable

In fact many high profile cases, Oracle vs UsedSoft, are in fact predecated on the fact that the EULA is a VALID contract. And then go into details as to what specific parts are ether uneforceable, etc.

This DOES NOT mean the EU thinks EULA are illegal. It DOES NOT mean EULA are illegal in the EU.
Oh boy, you as a an American surely hold a degree in European Union copy laws.

No, EULAs aren't automatically legally binding contracts. The fact that you can't see them before agreeing to them actually DOES disqualify them from being that in many European countries.
As you absolutely have to see what you agree to BEFORE you agree.

Unlike you I don't like to talk about stuff I know nothing about as if I do, so I will restrict my statement to Germany, as I'm not a 100% sure the laws are the same in the rest of our European Union.

"Situation in Germany

In Germany, EULA are only part of the standard software if they have already been agreed between the seller and the purchaser of the software at the time of purchase. This requires the possibility of taking note of the contract. License terms made available to the buyer after purchase (for example, during installation or as a printed insert in the packaging) have no effect on the buyer. This also applies if the buyer clicks on the installation "I agree to the license agreement" or similar, because otherwise the software refuses to install.

Even if the terms of the license have been agreed upon at the time of purchase (for example, when buying online through correspondingly visible advertisements prior to purchase or when buying in-store through clearly recognizable printing of the complete conditions on the packaging), their effectiveness may be limited. They then constitute general terms and conditions that are subject to content control by the terms and conditions of the BGB. (Citizen Law Book or something like that in English)"
Posted February 27, 2019
low rated
avatar
SPTX: I'd like to have a case of an EULA being disputed and settled in favour of the publisher before we can claim they are legal in the US. You know, a precedent.
avatar
satoru: Yeah because that's never happened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepcion

OH WAIT it did.

People claiming EULA are 'illegal' are functionally saying contracts are magically illegal. An EULA is a contract. EULA are not illegal. A contract is enforceable. An EULA is a contract. The EULA is enforceable contract.

You're free to dispute the contract terms. That doesnt make EULA 'illegal'

And nevermind that the EULA is never actually signed. That alone speaks volumes.
avatar
satoru: And you know somehow the Supreme Court didn't have a problem with that.
OK, sir, you should see by now that user is making false claim (a videogame eula restricting my civil rights?), just block him and be done with it. :P

*Modded, please refrain from using offensive languages.
Post edited February 28, 2019 by Ashleee
Posted February 27, 2019
the fair price was already gone a long time ago.
this was just a really bad move to force you to buy at least one game each year (to avoid the waste of your credit because there are really few games that actually do not use regional price).

Now gog is almost the same thing as humble bundle... just a few more drm-free games.
Posted February 27, 2019
low rated
avatar
satoru: Oh your first paragraph was doing so well.....and then...ugghhh........

The EULA is a contract. Just like any other contract.

The contract is legally binding no matter how much you want to pretend its not. now parts of it can be foudn to be in violation if they're written poorly

But an EULA cannot be 'illegal'. Because doing so means ALL CONTRACTS BY DEFINITION are illegal.

Dear god no that's not how you interpret that .....

Again lets go over the facts

1) EULA are contracts
2) contracts are legal
3) therefore EULA are legal

Now parties can argue over contract terms. Especially specific terms. They may interpet specfic parts of the contract differently and thus may go to court to assess what parts are or are not enforceable

In fact many high profile cases, Oracle vs UsedSoft, are in fact predecated on the fact that the EULA is a VALID contract. And then go into details as to what specific parts are ether uneforceable, etc.

This DOES NOT mean the EU thinks EULA are illegal. It DOES NOT mean EULA are illegal in the EU.
avatar
die-yng: Oh boy, you as a an American surely hold a degree in European Union copy laws.

No, EULAs aren't automatically legally binding contracts. The fact that you can't see them before agreeing to them actually DOES disqualify them from being that in many European countries.
As you absolutely have to see what you agree to BEFORE you agree.

Unlike you I don't like to talk about stuff I know nothing about as if I do, so I will restrict my statement to Germany, as I'm not a 100% sure the laws are the same in the rest of our European Union.

"Situation in Germany

In Germany, EULA are only part of the standard software if they have already been agreed between the seller and the purchaser of the software at the time of purchase. This requires the possibility of taking note of the contract. License terms made available to the buyer after purchase (for example, during installation or as a printed insert in the packaging) have no effect on the buyer. This also applies if the buyer clicks on the installation "I agree to the license agreement" or similar, because otherwise the software refuses to install.

Even if the terms of the license have been agreed upon at the time of purchase (for example, when buying online through correspondingly visible advertisements prior to purchase or when buying in-store through clearly recognizable printing of the complete conditions on the packaging), their effectiveness may be limited. They then constitute general terms and conditions that are subject to content control by the terms and conditions of the BGB. (Citizen Law Book or something like that in English)"
And like did you even read the part you quoted

The EULA for GOG/steam/etc is presented to you upon checkout. Thus

1) The EULA is presnted to you at hte time of purchase
2) you are given note of the contract
3) You are given the contract before purchase meaning its not given afterwards, not during installeation etc
4) The terms of the license are agreed upon at the time of purchase as you check "I agree to the EULA" before buying
5) the last part says "the EULA must abide by german law" which again all EULA do. This last paragraph in fact explicilty states EULA ARE LEGAL otherwise they wouldnt have to stipulate the limitations on them.

Again the notion that "EULA are illegal" is patently and utterly false. If you think an EULA is illegal, then you think all contracts are illegal. That's not how the law works. Thats now how the world works.

You really shouldn't quote things without reading them, especially when everything within it contradicts literally everything you think it says. Enjoy
Pages:
1
10
20
30
31
32
33
34
35
50
61
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionConclusion of the Fair Price Package program(910 posts)(910 posts)
(910 posts)