You can always back it up twice.

Yeah. Perhaps I'll do that when I get a new external drive since the one I have is almost full :D

If he can (and may) answer, I'm sure he will.

The question he asks is why is it pulled from users' accounts? Games aren't pulled from our accounts when they are removed from sale.

I'll risk a guess that the "Included FREE goodies" label has something to do with it. According to that label, we don't actually pay any money for them. Then again, if we don't pay any money for them, one has to wonder what exactly does one pay for in the case of Wasteland 2 Digital Deluxe Edition Upgrade (and other such cases), since the content one gets for their money is not in-game related and is also labelled as "Included FREE goodies".

It's a... royal mess.

As I already told. GOG has made a contract with the right holder but the customer also has made a contract and the contract contains the bonus material as well (and it was advertised as such) if it was not excluded anywhere. Otherwise it would be like me buying a car and the seller after a year is coming to me wanting back the radio built into the car. If I find the time I will search the GOG terms if such case is anywhere mentioned otherwise it simply is not legal to reclaim part of a sold item without giving back the money. Not that I really want to keep that SOundtrack but it is a principle thing.
Not true. The important term is not "FREE" but "INCLUDED". The goodies were included while advertising for the product we paid money for. (maybe we had not bought it without the included goodies?). So they normally cannot be excluded without breaking contract!

The real question , when GOG put the soundtrack as bonus, did you have the right holders authorization ?

Because as mentioned above removing content from user account ,(free or not isn't the matter) ; it was advertised with this content ,and removing it from user account is just a bad pratice. (note ; i'm not an expert in laws , but that doesn't sound good)

If GOG didn't have the authorization, that's a different matter, and pretty much understandable , but still.... :/

If any consumer laws don't allow it, it doesn't matter if such a GOG's terms have such a clause.
And as you say, it's a matter of principle and respecting the law, if the extras are to one's liking or not is irrelevant.


I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying that it's ok or true, I'm guessing that any arguments made might use that sort of reasoning.
I can understand some content being excluded from future sales, but from past purchases? I don't think that's legal, may have to look into what EU law says.


Don't even get me started with Obsidian.

There are some things you CAN exclude via special terms even if they are normally included and some you cannot so it is not THAT easy.

I only wanted to say that this kind of argument would not work I never assumed that this was your opinion.

I just had another thought. The right holder once gave permition to GOG to give the bonus material to the end user. The end user got the right to use it (without any time limit) so the right holder does not have any say about the things which are already sold to the end user. The right holder therefore can only request to stop selling the material but not force the end user to stop using it (which he did by exluding the material from the "shelf"). Something is definitely very wrong and GOG really should say why they are allowed to do so or why the right holder has anything to say about products which are already sold to the end user.

If this is the case, how can I see when I purchased a game by clicking on it? Shouldn't that two pieces (content and date of purchase of them) be linked together?
If they're not, then GOG is doing an even poorer job than I thought.

They know when you purchased the game, but they probably don't have the logic to "hide" a specific bonus based on comparing that date to the date of the bonus removal. This logic is what I referred to as the "bit".

You can either:
1) Perform the logic on-the-fly, every time a user clicks on the game (slower, but requires less memory)
2) Perform the logic once and remember it in a "bit" (faster, but requires more memory)

So much for software engineering 101.

OK, I see now.

I'm inclined to think that if extras get removed due to this, then GOG is clearly overstepping and not giving a flying kite that they do. I'm seriously going to have to see what EU law says about this.


Not sure I know about this. Could you elaborate? Specifically how that can apply here?