I *think* you misunderstand my point :

As time progresses, and new games/technologies are created, the legal "Cover Your Arse" shenanigans also evolve, and new EULAs are needed....and then applied retroactively to their older titles, whether clauses are still valid or not - just so the CYA is maintained.

They ARE a business, and need to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and other time- and money- wasting attempts from the Great Unwashed.

It wouldn't make sense for them to maintain 2, 38, or 100 different documents when one catch-all will do the job - bad, lazy, invalid-to-some-parts or not.

It probably saves on the lawyers needed too. Let alone the time and energy costs digging out many copies of old(er) EULAs for each specific game/property that specific old EULA covers.

Then they should not reserve the right. Just delete the said paragraph. Nothing easier than that. E.g. You can be quite sure (not 100%), that I will probably not doing any harm to you ever, however why should you give me any right for it?

You can never be sure about it unless they provide a better EULA. Even then you couldn't be sure of it, but then it would be at least illegal.

Remember that game companies are remaking a lot of games to work through XBL and PSN. For example, Capcom has released Final Fight on the Xbox 360 and PS3 and you can play it online, but only through XBL and PSN. In addition, the PS3 version requires a permanent online connection. See, it not only can be done, it has be done already.

Just drop the tinfoil paranoia already....it isn't healthy.

http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/

Capcom isn't EA and XBL / PSN / PS3 isn't GoG.com - you're still lacking any prove for your fears and claims.

What if... possibly... could be... - that's all you're bringing to the table. Rumors, slander, assumptions. Maybe you should try with facts before claims? It might (yes, I'm assuming here) help been taken serious.

On the other hand it might be like demanding too much to ask for proof of something when the mere possibility alone is already disturbing. If they never ever want to do these things than they should delete the paragraph. Nothing is easier.

And anyway any binding to an online service, basically a lot of multi player implementations for a lot of games, str screwed and will never ever be DRM free and therefore be lost in Gog's case. As long as the game is purely single player it doesn't matter but then this is a severe restriction to Gog.

1. You don't seriously read that much into everything you read, do you?

2. Pay them to fix it and they'll do it.

I may be over-thinking this, (but that seems to be the order of the day for this), but aren't your gog games already linked to an online [gog.com] account? ;)
I.E. - You can't download and play what you haven't paid for.

Also, some of them require a serial code for multiplayer online modes...NWN for example.

New improved EULA.10.2.64b is a catch-all, built from EVERY single preceding EULA as times and needs change, for EVERY single game they've ever released, even though parts of New improved EULA.10.2.64b obviously don't apply to game#00023 from 1992.

WHY would they have 465 versions of a document for 784 different games from 32 years of operating? And then be expected to trot out the specific individual EULA.02.6.1a from 1994 for Game#00116? And EULA.02.8.3a from 1995 for Game#00145? And EULA.06.23.1b from 1998 for Game#00365?
(Yes, it's an exaggeration, but what the hell, peeps?! Are you serious?! O_o)

DOES.
NOT.
COMPUTE.
One EULA to rule them all!

There is no need for tinfoil here, it's just that after having DRM'd me without half a dozen recent games and ruining Origin among other studios, EA is not getting a dime from me until we get an official explanation for the need to add so visibly this fits-for-all-sizes EULA.

It sets a bad example for the other publishers to follow, so if rewriting a better suited EULA would be too expensive, just say so and we can continue dreaming that those EULAs are printed on a toilet paper so they wouldn't be so worthless after all.

What are you trying to say exactly? I don't understand that first paragraph at all.

Becuase it makes no sense with the games on GOG. The installers don't have drm and all the games GOG have ever put on their website were unmodified retail versions made to work either through dosbox, scumm, fake drivers, driver tweaks etc. EA really aren't going to bother changing source code for the games. If they did, they wouldn't bother with GOG. If they are heavily modified, GOG wouldn't release them. So, where's the concern? Just over-active imaginations no more credible than the rapture theories.

They include them because they know that 99% of the people that buy a game aren't attorneys and that most of the remainder don't have that much money to spend on legal consultation to know whether or not the terms are enforceable.

Which is really the problem, there's numerous contracts that people sign every day that don't justify the cost of the legal consultation necessary to consent. People just sign them anyways without any understanding what's in them because it's too burdensome not to. And worse in some cases it makes little difference as you have to have a bank, and all of the banks will have similar terms that need to be agreed to in order to open an account.

It was paying the consequences of a banks terms which first got my head out of the sand. I was in my early 20's. Set up a checking account. I skimmed the terms, only paying attention to what I thought were the salient points. Well I got screwed. I suffered a tough recovery. It was my own damn fault. I didn't invest even attention to the terms of agreement. That experience, along with others, have taught me to be aware... particularly when dealing with fortune 500 companies.

_____________________________________________

Now I'm not what I would call "overly concerned" about EA's terms on GOG. I don't see how they can realistically enforce it. So I'm not very troubled by it as relates to my ability to play the game I bought. I still read and pondered their EULA though. Mostly I am just irked at the way some (actually most) big companies do business. How they relate to us their customers etc. In that vein, I take some issue with their EULA. Not so much that I will boycott as I do with steams enforceable EULA, and Impulses new privacy policy etc. But I see where people are coming from when they take issue with EA's EULA on GOG. They have a point which I understand.

And lol, I'd far rather wear a tinfoil hat than bury my head in the sand. That whole tin foil hat thing is sooooo overplayed, and misplayed now. It never held much value, and now it holds none.