How does that phrase go... "Buyer beware!".

We can't necessarily stop the sale of defective goods, but there should at least be laws necessitating the disclosure of such defects in plain simple words like: WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE"LL KILL THE MANDATORY ONLINE SERVERS REQUIRED TO PLAY THIS GAME, BUT WE WILL AS SOON AS WE DON"T WANT TO PAY FOR THEM ANYMORE... OR WE"RE TRYING TO SELL A NEW GAME AND YA"LL STILL PLAYING THIS ONE INSTEAD OF OUR MEDIOCRE NEW ONE.

Sure... and if an apple requires a catalytic converter to transmit its calories the tree should be sued as well.
Any other nonsensical off-topic ideas?

The topic was about a licensing agreement.

Yeah it's called the end user license agreement. It's super clear and the very 1st item on it spells exactly that out. Its on the store page. How much hand holding do you need to navigate life?

It's not tricky unless you find reading hard. And you don't have to play the game. Just skip over it. Easy.

They must be tricky because people are still shelling out money for these defective games. Clearly the warning labels are not big enough for people to easily see them.

For somebody shaming others for reading comprehension, you sure love to ignore my motive for disrespecting the EULA. If Ubisoft wants my money, all they need to do is offer an offline mode, preferably sell on GOG while they're at it. I legally bought Far Cry 2 and Asscreed 1 here; their stubborn foolishness in enforcing digital bondage for everything after them means they don't get my money.

And look who's out of the loop on modern car design; they're actually trying to sell car parts like DLC and lock their usage behind connectivity. Good news: I never drive in real life partly because of this garbage, but I simply must have all the open-world games I can to fill the void. The more of them that I legally own, the better; but that's up to the publishers.

No one cares about your motive for wanting to steal. You are not entitled to play the game.

Nobody cares what you claim the topic is about if you're going to ignore essential components of the topic.

Ok, all kidding aside - I really don't get the vehement hate for this initiative from "some" users here. Yes, people bought a DRM-ed game. They should have known better. So? They got burned, they learned from that debacle and they are trying to facilitate some real change for the good of preserving games. You know, one of the core tenets that GOG and the whole DRM-free thing is supposed to be about. How is this a bad thing? What's the worst case scenario here? The initiative fails and things are no worse off for us, and perhaps at least some people will learn something and buy DRM-free in the future? Oh no, those bastards! Lets smugly insult people some more and brag about how adept we are at reading license agreements!

Ok so LegoDnD wrongly stated that "Those who pay for access have a right to indefinite access".
To correct this lie I had to quote the EULA.

Then LegoDnD writes: "I reject your user agreement and substitute my own."
Also that "whenever a game that requires a connection is cracked, whoever insisted on that requirement doesn't deserve to see even one penny from all the downloads of the unconnected version."

What I believe is bad, is condoning stealing something because it was being sold under conditions you don't like. I also believe its bad to complain about an agreement you entered into.

It's like babies throwing a tantrum instead of adults taking some responsibility.

If you want to take responsible action to stop such models then don't buy/play such games. Don't force others to sell things the way you want. Companies should be free to sell how they want. And the winners will be chosen by who gets the most customers.

"Some" people either genuinely think quoting "muh eula" is the end all be all of legal/moral argument, or are just fishing for attention and flame wars.. To them any effort that falls remotely short of their arbitrarily pure ideology deserves only scorn and mockery, not a helping hand and critical support.

Best to not engage with such willingly ignorant and toxic people and not feed their desire for attention and contrarianism.

Indeed. Taking organised action to improve your legal standing as a consumer and protect works you consider important from oblivion. Truly, the height of infantile behaviour. Now, taking to an internet forum to insult people exercising their rights with no possible negative impact on yourself - now that's some serious adult shit right there.

Yes. It's very much the same sort of teenage apathy guised as "realism/pragmatism" that people use as excuses in other spheres of life, then wonder why nothing changes.

"X action is both useless, doomed to fail, and stupid/infantile. So I will not participate in it."
Y bad thing happens as a result of X action not happening
"I told you guys, X action is useless. Cynical realism wins again! Har har har"

Clearly you've never been taken to court. Yeah its what matters.
Its not yours to protect. Its the owners. A license to use something is not ownership.

Nobody is denying that the EULA legally matters. Part of what this entire campaign is about is that EULAs being so overbroad and oppressive that it denies consumers rights in spirit if not in name.

The EULA **IS** overbroad and the users **HAVE** agreed to it.
But, the EULA **SHOULD** not deny consumer rights, even if the users **HAVE** agreed to it. It's the Is-Ought problem all over again. You just simply refuse to entertain the notion that EULAs **can and/or should** be overturned **by a court/legal body**.

You see other people fell, tripped, got dragged, tap danced, walked, or ran into in a EULA pit. Some of them didn't know there was a pit, some of them were blind, some knew there was a pit but thought they could skip over it, and a few willingly walked into the pit for whatever reason.

The only thing you're doing is impotently squealing at others and yourself that
1. The Pit is the only thing that matters
2. it's useless for anyone to try to escape the pit
3. Every single one of the idiots who fell, tripped, got dragged, tap danced, walked, or ran into the pit, regardless of whether or not they knew about the Pit, deserves to stay in the Pit for the rest of the duration of the universe for the grave sin of wanting to play a damn video game
4. Everybody trying to pull each other up out of the pit are babies throwing tantrums and refusing to accept the consequences of their grave sins

Ironic for a person who extols "adult responsibility" you throw a fit when adults decide to do something about unjust conditions, instead of wallowing in apathy and manic narcissism like you.

Your insistence on owners having the ultimate right over licenses beyond reason is genuinely borderline manic. I genuinely can't think of a single reason why anybody would argue this rabidly **against** their consumer/class interests