1st bit: You know what they say about hoping for the best but preparing for the worst, right? Plus there's the whole problem with internet being spotty for some and also some services removing some games(not GOG) from people's accounts or even CHANGING CONTENT(like removing music in some games/etc) when licenses expire or the like.

Heck, I am a laid back mofo and forget to backup stuff like I should, and even I know how important it is to back up your stuff. Internet can go down for a bit or longer, companies who sell games can fold(if gog ever folded and people didn't have their games downloaded they'd likely be SOL), etc.


2nd bit: True, but going too far(too many users) without extra copies bought(to me) would still be d*ckish to do, family or no.

Below is an email reply from GoG Support regarding using GoG games with my family. I hope it clarifies things. Additional:

Certain games do have their own EULA's which might over rule what LexRust has said.

Also it might be worth throwing the developer an email. When I bought Torchlight 2 direct from the devs their website made it hard to by multiple copies. So I sent them a quick email saying I wanted to by 3 copies for the family, to which they replied they were happy for me to use 1 copy for the entire family.

Lastly, WinStore allows a single license to be used on upto 10 machines simultaneously.


The biggest issue here is the complete lack of unified and coherent rules and legislation. Nothing is concrete, its all open to interpretation, and often its conflicting.


On a personal note
For a year me and my wife played Dying Light co-op using just the one copy. We got so much enjoyment from it, I bought a second copy for her and 2 sets of the DLC to support the developers.

Hope this clears things up a bit

Thanks for all the info including the bits I snipped. This would all indicate GOG is fine with what OP wants to do/families playing the same game copy on multiple systems.

Thanks again for digging this all up. :)

GOG profit margins are thin and you offer only two cents?!? It should be two bucks at minimum. And not just any bucks, I mean MEGABUCKS!

It is a double-barreled sword which is better to GOG's profit: insisting people to buy several copies of the game within the same household, or the customers feeling good about being able to use one purchased copy within the household, hence buying MOAR games from GOG. Like the OP felt GOG is superior to Steam because GOG doesn't have that kind of technical limitation.

Then again, most will not argue that it would somehow be good to GOG or the publishers that people would freely share their GOG games to the world. So everyone has to decide what seems morally right to them. To me it is the same as mentioned already: sharing within the household is ok, but even then I do not pass the installers to others, but install them myself to any other PCs. So I am still in control how, where and why the purchased GOG installers are used, like that no one else in the household passes them along to the world. (Then again at the moment I am the sole player of my GOG games in our household anyway, so...).

No idea why your comment was downvoted, BTW.

I buy lots of games on a whim because I know my family can play them when they want.

Perhaps saving on food.

Such amount of stupidity.

So GOG is even more awesome that I though. No double edged sword. No dilemma, GOG says go right ahead and play your game in your own home however you like. It's a zero edged sword really. GOG is awesome and I buy game from them because of that fact. No need to even use a sword.

From GOG.COM User Agreement:
"2.2 When you buy, access or install GOG games, you might have to agree to additional contract terms with the developer/publisher of the game (e.g. they might ask you to agree to a game specific End User Licence Agreement). If there is any inconsistency or dispute between those ‘EULAs’ and this Agreement, then this Agreement wins."

That is one of many examples how it starts that people spread untruth about buying games on GOG.

Your naive reading of that clause suggests that there is no reason whatsoever for these EULAs to exist, unless they say exactly the same thing that the UA says.. in which case there'd be no reason for those EULAs to exist.

A less naive reading would be that when it is impossible to simultaneously satisfy some clauses in both agreements, then the clauses in GOG's UA takes precedence. This means EULAs can place additional restrictions (because it is possible for you to respect those restrictions simultaneously while you respect the restrictions & rights imposed by the UA). Which would be good enough reason for publishers to want to impose an EULA on you. Then I think it boils down to the interpretation of "personal use" or fair use held in Poland. Does it mean personal as in only-by-you-the-person or personal as in non-commercial and such?

LexRust's post hints at an interpretation, but no matter how I read it, it seems to disagree with the letter of the UA: 3.3 Your GOG account and GOG content are personal to you and cannot be shared with, sold, gifted or transferred to anyone else. I think LexRust's statement is in direct conflict with this statement. Sharing with anyone else is not permitted by the UA. However, fair use laws in Poland may be more lenient. I don't know Polish law.

It's hairy, and I don't think it's something that can be resolved without a court's decision. It does not help that the UA subjects you to rules in the FAQ, but the FAQ is written in a casual style and is even more vague & open to interpretation than the UA itself. What were they smoking?

There are other hairy things about that UA, and I think it's only good for toilet paper decoration.

For example, this clause can eat shit and die:

11.1 (e) Do not create, use, make available and/or distribute cheats, exploits, automation software, robots, bots, mods, hacks, spiders, spyware, cheats, scripts, trainers, extraction tools or other software that interact with or affect GOG services or GOG content in any way

Yes, the definition of "GOG content" includes games. So don't you dare mod them. Don't you dare write or use tools such as InnoExtract.. don't you dare cheat. It's funny that the clause says cheats twice. Looks like cheats are a big deal for GOG. Or maybe they never reviewed their garbage UA. Which means they don't even take it seriously themselves. Which is why LexRust can tell you that it's ok to ignore the UA and do what you like with your family. *Shrug*

Now did I say something that may be considered offensive in this post (that is also a UA violation which may lead to suspension or account deactivation)? I will gift a free copy of The Expression Amrilato to the lawyer who knows the answer.

These vague and wide open to interpretation clauses are total bullshit.

After reading this, I hope some of you came to understand what I meant in post 6 in this thread: Follow your heart if you're chaotic good, follow the books that make you a demon if you're lawful good.

Lol true...if I had money I would buy multiple copies of my favorite games just to give them out in contests and support the site more.

Heck I even DO DO THAT.....though not as much as I would like(budget troubles/etc).
===================
True, but i'd still advocate if one has a LARGE(over 6 or so people) family that they THINK about buying more copies to support the site that brings them such good games as well as buying more games in general. ;)
==================
All good points, but as I said: If one's family is very big then sharing it will all of them to me is no different morally/etc than sharing with the same amount of people outside the home/family.

(Note to all: I do not do this or advocate people do this....sharing outside the home/etc that is)
===================
I don't mind it but it makes me think: If people downvote people who pirate even for legit reasons(like backup copies of owned and bought games) here then why downvote me saying one shouldn't share with too many family members? :\

It makes one think it's double standards and the like with some here...



1. Is this calling my sentiment stupid? If so that's a bit uncalled for.

2. People can save on food in various ways(buying generic brands/clipping coupons/buying in sales/etc)....also as others have said here to me: If one is that poor why are they spending money on a bunch of games/etc? If one is so poor they cannot blow a couple bucks to buy one more games copy without going without food they have to reprioritize their spending a bit, one would think.

But if they CAN afford to buy here and their budget isn't too tight they should think about supporting the site bringing them all these games DRM free(for the most part, barring some game's MP parts as some have mentioned).

You need one to fight off the gog bears, though...they can be mean, I hear tell. o.0