Put it this way: Imagine you were at a lawyer's office, drawing up a contract of your own. You found yourself uncertain about a particular clause, and asked for clarification. Your lawyer explains in non-legalese what the clause means. His explanation is (I presume) not binding, but does serve to aid your understanding of the legalese version. Is the lawyer's action there a PR stunt?

This, as far as I see (and noting that I don't claim to know the intentions of others), seems to serve that same purpose: it explains the legalese.

It also allows one to get the idea of what the agreement says without going through the full document (whether or not you intend on reading the legalese at a later point), as long as one is willing to trust the people at GOG; if one doesn't trust them, then one presumably falls back on reading the legalese.

I'm honestly more inclined to assume helpfulness than cynical PR manipulation here.

To be honest, interpreting the "english" version to be a cynical PR stunt seems somewhat cynical to me.

What suggestion is there of introducting DRM? o_0

Such as? (I'm genuinely curious.)

The movies seem to be just an expansion of their range of products. If you don't like them, then that's okay, but it doesn't mean that GOG shouldn't offer them.

Regional pricing is perhaps more arguable; one can interpret that as cynical, altruistic, pragmatic or a combination the aforementioned.

Since it's not in the official agreement, it's not really binding, is it?

As far as I can tell, none of those were an explicit part of the transaction.

When I buy a £30 game on GOG, I am paying for the game and $X in store credit. It even says so on the receipt! And I may very well have purchased it on GOG only because of the store credit, which means GOG is changing the agreement after the fact. Especially considering I paid for that store credit before the policy change. And it says "any future purchase". Any.

Even if it isn't illegal for GOG to do this, it's a dick move. Unfortunately, not even remotely surprising.

First they stopped you from redeeming DLC when you don't already own the base game on GOG (it's okay, you can just give GOG money to use something you've already... paid.. for). And most people thought I was making a big deal out of something that doesn't affect anyone.

Then they limited the number of a game you can gift per day because "evil resellers!". Don't worry though, that doesn't affect anyone either.

I complained about these not because they are going to affect so many people, but because that are symptoms of a change in mindset which is going to go downhill really fast. GOG are being selective in what they will set to what people.. that means they don't trust their customers anymore.

And remember, a customer is anyone who buys stuff, even if it is all 1000 sale keys. Beware the "No True Scotsman" fallacy if you are going to claim "well, they aren't real customers". If they paid exactly the same money as anyone else, yeah they are.

And now we are here. Pay up your protection money or use your credit when GOG say so, even if they didn't put any limits on when you could use it when they first sold it to you.

FWIW, the one-year limit is not new, it's been there from the beginning.

That of course does not negate the fact that the receipt statement "for any future purchase" is disingenuous, at best.

Even during a sale there is still a percentage of store credit on a regionally priced game and purchasing any game that awards store credit will automatically reset the timer on your entire balance, not just the amount accrued from the game just bought.

Let's be realistic here; what's the chance that any of us would only purchase one regionally priced game in a 12 month period?

I agree that the wording needs to be changed on the receipts though.

Ok doke, firstly there are lawyers who specialize in writing plain english - so for those of you who are saying that Gog ddsn't have a choice about the complicated legal writing - absolute nonsense. There are so many plain english specialists around who do this...

Secondly, and most importantly Gog are effectively giving you a legal binding contract to read and agree with. They are saying please read the easy version if you want. But oh, by the way it has no legal standing whatsover. If this isn't cynical I don't know what it.

I was very excited when I saw the plain english version - it's definetely the way to go, in terms of consumer protection and rights, at least until I saw the notice in fine print stating that it has no legal standing.
How hard is this to understand? It's the principle of the matter. Have one or the other - preferably the plain english version. Come on Gog make a stand on this.
At the mo it's like being half pregnant - dosn't work.

I have to agree with this guy.

The "translated" version is appreciated, guys. :)

If the dumbed down version isn't legally upheld, then there's no sense in it. I appreciate the dumbed down version being supplied, but if it isn't upheld legally, then that means that there's something in the legal papers that ISN'T in the plain english version.

It shouldn't be too hard to turn "legalese" into plain speech if you just include a bunch of exceptions in bullet point form.

Then try it. I'd be curious to see what you come up with.

Leave a suitcase full of money in the elm tree by the old patio beside Phil's Diner and you got a deal.

Pish. I don't have enough pennies to fill a suitcase. :P

Not really entering the discussion here, but just point out a fallacy.

There is a difference between 'growth' and 'maintain status quo'. Most of the changes gOg have implemented is to grow, not to stop from going under. gOg would probably have been just fine surviving as a small store (Boutique :)) just catering for retro gaming, but that's not where they wanted to stay. But expanding is not the same as "not going under". You may argue that if you do not expand - you may at some point go under, but it is a false argument.

I don't see it that way. GOG used to be "Good Old Games", but let's be honest - this market is limited. There are only so many friends of old-school gaming and there only so many titles that you can get for sale (with reasonable effort). GOG had to go Indie and AAA not to stagnate (or even shrink).
The boutique approach is nice, but to strengthen your position in negotiations with publishers you need to have a certain momentum - revenue.
In a real boutique the products are handcrafted for you and cost $1000. They don't compete with H&M or C&A. In this regard GOG can't work like a boutique - they still have to compete with the supermarket chain Steam (who also went to selling classics, even if in pitiful condition).

I think there are only two ways for GOG to go, up or down. Stagnation will mean down - they will be cut out of the market.

Only because they are entering a different market.