GOG's own about page says this: "GOG.com is a digital distribution platform with a... 'you buy it, you own it" philosophy'" The about page also says this: "We don't believe in controlling you and your games. Here, you won't be locked out of titles you paid for." I think it is of utmost importance that GOG retains this philosophy. GOG has my greatest appreciation and respect for holding these values dear, the same way I do. The complaints I make here are not against GOG at all, but against companies like EA and Activision that insist on including EULAs for their games here.

Virtually all video game EULAs have one feature in common, they say that you don't buy the game but a license. The EULA goes on to list conditions under which the license may be terminated, and your legal right to play the game therefore revoked. This is in direct conflict with GOG's philosophy of never locking out players from games they bought.

Some EULAs allow the developer to terminate the agreement and license at any time and without reason. I haven't seen EULAs like that on GOG, but Elden Ring has such an EULA. You can find Elden Ring's EULA on the game's steam page. Section 6, Term, says this: "Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause at any time with reasonable prior notice." By allowing EULAs on GOG, we open the door for unquestionably anti-consumer, and dubiously legal agreements such as Elden Ring's.

Two examples of games on GOG with EULAs are SimCity 4 Deluxe Edition, and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. These agreements both contain terms that I consider objectionable and downright disrespectful to customers, even beyond the main premise, that the game is licensed, not sold.

SimCity 4's EULA has a section called CONSENT TO USE OF DATA that says this: "When you play this game offline, EA and its affiliates may collect and store non-personally identifiable data including your Internet Protocol
Address as well as game play and software usage statistics. If and when you access online features and/or services (if any), this data may be transmitted to EA. EA may use this information to improve our products and services and may share anonymous data with third parties... you agree that EA and its affiliates may
collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including an Internet Protocol Address and hardware identification), operating system and application software and peripheral hardware." Why should I have to allow EA to steal my data to play a 20 year old game? If you disagree with the terms, then the only option is not to buy the game, because the agreement also says that you can't start a class-action lawsuit over this.

VtMB's EULA at least doesn't have any terms about stealing data, but it provides the company more freedom to terminate the agreement. If the EULA is broken by the customer, then the license is revoked and you no longer have a legal right to play the game, according to the agreement, which may or may not actually be legally binding, if it is proven to be unlawful for whatever reason. If you buy this game, you agree not to "Reverse engineer, derive source code, modify, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of this Program, in whole or in part." Doing so would terminate the agreement automatically. The agreement already says they're only selling you a license, and if the license is revoked on termination, then you are left with nothing according to the EULA.

In conclusion, EULAs suck, and I encourage everybody to make your voices heard on this issue by talking about EULAs in your reviews. I don't believe this is against GOG's policy for reviews, because the agreement limits your ability to interact with the game. Again, I don't blame GOG for this, but I implore GOG not to give up on it's main philosophy of "you buy it, you own it". And I revile these companies that insist on including EULAs.

I just consider it a bunch of legalese and move on with my life. As long as I can play them offline and mod them however I see fit, they can't do squat. What are they going to do, remove them from my GOG library?

The EULA would seemingly give them that right, as well as the right to compel you to delete the game and any copies of the installer.

"Compel". Yes, let me just delete this DRM-free data that's not easily copyable. That'll show me.

Not that I'm advocating piracy, but I have extreme doubts they'll bother to enforce anything. Nearly 20 years afterward. The EULA in this case, especially a DRM-free GOG release, is just legacy stuff to scare off gullible people.

Besides, a lot of these big name publishers already have their own launchers anyway if they don't use Steam, and if they already released on GOG, then they don't really care too much at that point.

If they don't intend to enforce the agreement, then why include it? At minimum, it shows contempt not only for GOG's philosophy but the game's paying customers. It's like the company is saying, "You better thank us every minute you enjoy this game, because we can take it away any time. It's not yours, it's ours."

These kind of EULAs are less of a problem for games that don't require internet connection or an external launcher, because as you said it's unlikely (though I insist not impossible) the company will go to the effort of making you delete all copies. For games that require an internet connection, either to provide necessary game content, or to insure that you legally own the license, the company can easily revoke access to the game at any time.

I don't know if I'm allowed to link external content, but I think Accursed Farms does some good videos on this on YouTube. Check out his Darkspore review, or his video, "Gaming as a service is fraud" if you are interested and have time.

Firstly a license is a "thing", its a non-tangible asset that can be owned and has value. Corporations treat software licenses just the same as books, hardware or rental equipment (depending on types of license) for the purpose of tax and accounting.

Its just Publishers have been trying to undermine that, they want software to be ephemeral and temporary.

Which leads us to; second a EULA has almost no legal influence or power. Its not a contract, more a wishlist, and the only parts of the EULA you are bound to and can be legally enforced are those that already exist outside the EULA in case and statute law. Part of the reason Pubs love DRM so much is because they can enforce their wishlist of demands without actually testing whether they are legal via the courts.

The greatest issue for consumers is very little of the rights and laws regarding software ownership exist as Statute law, as in a government published and coherent description of the legal rights and framework of those rights. Almost all of it exists as case law, where 2 parties hammered it out in court and a decision was made and recorded. Which wouldn't be too bad if it wasn't that there will be a dozen cases supporting your right, an other dozen vehemently opposing it.

Occasionally you'll get landmark cases (such Oracle vs Usedsoft), but even they can be undermined which is why 6+ years on from the Usedsoft you still can't resell Steam games.

I don't claim to know all the laws about licenses, or what constitutes a good instead of a service. To me, it's just wrong to include EULAs on a deep level. I understand not all gamers feel this way. I would like to play Elden Ring, too (if I had a strong enough computer), but some gamers are too willing to forgive this kind of stuff from developers they love. But, if I were in the market for Elden Ring, I could buy it elsewhere. I'm glad there's a bastion of gamer rights here at GOG and I don't want that to change.

Just take a look at all the companies that have released DRM and EULA free games. CD Projekt Red and Piranha Bytes don't force DRM or EULAs on their customers. Even Bethesda doesn't include EULAs on their games here, as far as I can tell. I applaud these companies, but really I shouldn't have to, this should be the standard.

EULAs are put in by companies to protect their rights in case they need to prove any of them in court. In reality the stuff written in them probably won't stand up to legal scrutiny but no one is dumb or rich enough to die on that hill so they continue pushing them. As long as you have the game DRM-free, nothing else much matters because having a game not connected to the internet is about the best security you can get.

Theoretically, even if EULAs were fair, no one would be paying to fight for the rights they were granted through such EULAs in court because that's too much trouble.

How big a percentage of GOG's current library would need to be removed for this to happen? (do indies have EULAs generally?)

I would suggest checking the games in your library. At least 9 out of 10 will not have a EULA, I guess. Indie games almost never have EULAs. If a game has a EULA it will be listed underneath the system requirements on the store page. You will read a statement like this: ACCEPTANCE OF END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED TO PLAY

Same here. I worked as developer for a company that specialised in software for the UK legal market. Got to learn the ins and outs of how law works. Plus time doing FAST compliance ensuring the company's software was all licensed and accounted for.

I know enough to know how damn complex and unfit for purpose software licensing is for consumers, and that the state level laws for digital ownership are decades behind what's currently needed.

I dislike EULA's too. They are just a list of demands, heavily weighted to the publisher, designed to look like some binding legal contract. Smoke and mirrors.

we have bigger fish to fry like DRM (hitman debacle for example).
Trying to get feature parity so we aren't treated as second class digital citizens.
Getting rid of galaxy as a distant third.

I agree that DRM is even worse than EULAs.

As for feature parity, that seems like something you'd have to take up with the developer. But it doesn't bother me that much personally, because you still receive the game.

GOG Galaxy doesn't bother me at all as long as the offline installers remain available. Some people like to have a launcher and support for achievements.

The reason I brought up EULAs is because they are rarely taken seriously.

Isn't GoG anti-consumer though? Look at all the lies surrounding Cyberpunk and it's "review" process. CDPR's whole "we are for the consumer" shtick is just a lie to swindle gullible people.

I think GOG protects consumers more than most, if not all, others. I guess you could buy some indie games on itch.io, but there's not another company as large as GOG that takes consumer rights so seriously.

I personally thought the backlash against Cyberpunk was overblown. I didn't have a top of the line computer when it launched, and it didn't run perfectly, but I still enjoyed playing it. That's more of an argument against pre-ordering games I think.

But my opinion on Cyberpunk is not relevant to this discussion about EULAs