i am not a lawyer or accountant but it seems that if the logic for the expiring credit thing is that it's an accounting issue why not set up an escrow account just to handle unused credit, that would keep GOG's books and user credit separate avoiding the red flag thing

GOG will most likely become fully DRM controlled in the future. But hey, you can still pay a more expensive price for games that work 90% of the time with no work on GOG's part, and isn't that what it's all about?

Happy Valentine's Day ,everyone <3

POSSIBLE TYPO!!!!

It appears you have a typo in the Privacy document:

"Any legal claim by you against GOG.com will be made exclusively any state or federal court located in Los Angeles, California..."

Should that not be "Any legal claim by you against GOG.com will be made exclusively in any state or federal court located in Los Angeles, California

I thought it might be important that you fix this, for legal reasons.

I hope not. I'll stop using GOG in such case.

Still not impressed by the 5 gift limit. I bought and gave away way more than 5 games on a couple of days during the Fall and Winter sales. Does GOG not want my money?

Also, I donate codes in batches of up to 10 at a time to the BBBBoB giveaway. If 6 or more of my games are given out not only will I not be able to personally give away any games that day, but some of the winners won't be able to claim their prizes either.

on the 5 game transfer limit it doesn't make too much sense if they are talking about games bought specifically as giftable.
if they are talking about gifting library games it might be to comply with eu consumer laws like first sale doctrine that basically says software is a sold transferable item as opposed to the us view that you are just a licencee with no rights;
However due to identity theft concerns I would prefer to be able to lock down my library as non-transferable so my games can't be stolen.
that said I would like the ability to dump games I have a spare copy/license of into some sort of pool that would randomly gift it to another verified gog customer who needed it. I sometimes end up with spare copies of stuff from bundles and such and instead of it saying "you already own this" i would rather it say "you have redeemed this code and it is in your library", "you already have a copy of this in your library so you are redeeming this as a giftable copy", or "you have redeemed this code as a giftable copy[and transferred that gift to...]". that way the gifting is done at gog's end, i don't want to gift spare codes i have directly because that way i won't personally have to keep track of which codes i have used and which i have given away and won't run into drama if i run through code lists from one of the bundle sites and some of the codes i have have already been redeemed or gifted.

So let me get this straight. If you don't buy more from GOG within a certain time frame from your last purchase from GOG, GOG will destroy your assets? ( I assume you mean GOG will no longer allow you access to your games or your game library. In short, stealing from you what you have already bought from them )

I thought I had read this somewhere in this forum before, but thought that can't be true, or there would definately be more of an outcry over this and not just one forum post, but this makes two now that I've read and I'm starting to become a little concerned over this.

Read a lot of GOG's so called 'friendly version' of their new policy change, but haven't really read or tried to decipher the legaleeze yet. Everybody knows that's the documentation that counts, not GOG's sugar coated version of what their new policy is.

he is talking about store credit which expires after a year.

you are not going to lose access to your library because you had not purchased anything.
yeah. that's weird limit.

wonder whether GoG got struck with lots of charge backs and people using stolen credit cards on this service. cause this is the only reason why GOG would introduce this limit know how popular gifting is on this forum (which means extra sales as users spend money while they would not do it without gifting)

We’d like to let you know that we’re uploading the new User Agreement and Privacy Policy to the site.

You’ll be pleased to hear that point 9.1 was rewritten entirely to be more user-friendly (as per the many suggestions you’ve made) and that all other changes we made in the previously posted versions after your comments remain in the document.

You will have gotten (or will be getting anytime now) an email informing you about the change.

If anything is missing, contact us within 30 days - after then, it becomes legally binding and comes into force on the site.

Thank you for all your invaluable input on this matter, and we hope you continue enjoying DRM-free gaming!

[edit] This thread has been un-stickied so as to prevent confusion that more legal updates are planned soon.

(c) Regarding GOG services (which includes GOG software), unless you have prior GOG permission please don’t modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works ofthem – unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country

Shame on you you forgot a space between of and them. :P

Much as I like Gog I find the new user polices to be an absolute cop out. The plain english version is an unfortunate rather cynical marketing ploy. You either write the policy in plain english and make it legally binding or you don't. Having a plain english version which dosn't mean anything is just a dud pr stunt.
Just a bit disappointed with Gog. BTW I'm not at all concerned with the actual policies - just that you have a plain english version which has NO legal standing whatsover. I would challenge you to either remove the plain english or replace the legales document with it. Having both of them is a cop out. It's the principal of the matter that irks me somewhat.

Ryan

[i]
[i]"I'm not sure I understand what you're saying - you're mad at us that plain language isn't legally binding enough to use it, but that we used it to explain the legalese in more readable terms for those, that a) don't want to read through the whole document, b) aren't native English speakers and could have difficulty with legal terms?

The plain English version was never MEANT to have legal standing, as it's just a summary of what the other paragraphs say.

We intended for it to be a way to make things easier, not make PR stunts in legal documents. I'm sorry you feel that way about an attempt to simplify people's lives, and if you want to read the legally binding section, simply ignore the plain English one :)[/i]

Well, I'm not mad, just a bit disappointed. I don't see the point - other than a pr stunt of having a plain english version which is completely worthless. People can read it, bring up an issue regarding the policies and GOG would quite happily point out that they failed to read the correct documentation. There is no point whatsover in having it there, except to add to the confusion. Either get rid of the legal version or the plain english version.
Again, I'm not spitting mad, just a bit irritated.

That is EXACTLY the problem rygold is talking about. As rygold stated earlier, having both a GOG's version and the binding legales version is a cop out.

There is no need to have a legales version if the GOG version were to be legally binding. The only reason to have a GOG version of the policy in addition to the legally binding version, is for the GOG version to be deceptive in some way, no matter how mild the deception.

One or the other should exist, not both, and that is the one that should be legally binding. Not a so called 'friendly' version that says 'this is what we mean', and then a legally binding version that basically says 'but this is what we REALLY mean.'

As it stands now, if GOG decides not to honor something written in their so called 'friendly' version, they can do so and get away with it legally simply because they also have a legally binding version of the policy change, as well. In other words GOG can simply choose not to honor anything in their friendly version by saying:

Sorry if you have to abide by something you didn't agree to, because you mistook the friendly version as the legally, required, HONEST version, but tuff luck.

Admit it. That's what this all boils down to, so rygold is spot on with his or her concern about GOG having both a legally binding version and THEIR version of the policy change.