You said: "We can change this Agreement but if we do we'll put the changed version online and normally it will take effect a reasonable time period afterwards."

Fine, but what happens If I don't agree with the updated TOS? Would I lose access to my account (and purchased games) permanently? You should clarify that point.

Acceptance of any service's or product's terms of use is a necessity if you want to use it (legally that is). So if for whatever reason you stop accepting that agreement, be it due to change of the agreement or simply change of your mind / view on things you accept or don't accept, you cannot use the service or product anymore. It has nothing to do with gog really. It's just how things work.

But this is precisely where beauty of drm-free comes into play, isn't it? You can download all the games you purchased, tell gog you don't want to use their service anymore, for whatever reason it might be, and your games (purchases) remain functional.

Yeah, I know it. But in a worst-case scenario, what would happen if GOG updates UA to include (a sort of) DRM in games? Then you couldn't download your DRM-Free games before they became DRM games. So, I would like a guarantee that we will be able to download our purchased DRM-Free games (with a reasonable time window) before GOG (hypothetically) could introduce DRM in games.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure GOG will stick to the promise of being a DRM-Free game store. But, that's why I think this promise should be reflected in the UA.

To get to the point, I'd like to see a DRM-Free promise (for already purchased content) in GOG.com policies. Or at least, an option to download it before they cahnge it.

That's great. You are really marking the difference.

Thanks for the update! I'm looking forward for those fixes.

Point 9 is indeed a bit worrying to me too...

I like the "quick summary" column. First time I ever saw that, and it's another sign that GOG is a company that cares about its customers.

I love the GOG staff! Wishing you all a very long and happy life!

And thanks for supporting Linux! :D

Regarding Point 12:
More of a suggestion than specifically TOS related, but would it be possible for GoG to ask publishers/developers whether they are willing to have fan-created content uploaded/shared (e.g. Let's Plays) and have something on the game page (e.g. an icon) stating that the developer/publisher was happy for their game to be shared in that manner?

Obviously you would need to write some kind of agreement/additional ToS to cover when/how it could be used without fear of reprisal, and it wouldn't be exhaustive, but it would add some value to inform users where publishers were happy to have things used.
E.g. if the developer is happy for Let's Play videos, you could have a "Let's Play" icon on the page to signify as such, although it all might start to get a little complicated to cover the variety of use cases.

I could be wrong, but I interpreted Lonyo's post as "would you add an indicator on the product page showing whether the developer of the title has taken a stance on 'Let's Play'-style content sharing"?

For example, Microsoft Studios (I pick them, because they very recently revised it to support monetization) has a document at http://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/rules which lays out their rules, and the short version is:
Yes, you can share Let's Play videos, as long as they are captured during normal gameplay without reverse engineering, and as long as they aren't objectionable (pornographic, hate speech, illegal, etc).
Yes, you can monetize them, as long as they comply with the prior stipulations, using the YouTube or Twitch platforms.
You cannot name videos in a way that implies that they're endorsed by Microsoft, so "Let's Play Forza Motorsport 5" is okay, but "Halo: Covenant Strike" is not.

A title whose developer has a similar published set of rules for sharing user-captured video might then receive a green checkmark next to (or over) an icon of a video player, whereas a title that explicitly prohibits such content might have a red X, and titles with unknown policies might have a gray question mark. (like the attached image)

There would be no need to link to (or imply endorsement of) any specific videos... just an acknowledgement of whether the developer has a known policy for Let's Play style videos, and if so, whether it's supportive or prohibitive.

I actually landed here considering starting a separate thread asking GOG to remove Google scripts from their web site.

Reading the Privacy Policy made it clear this not only will not happen, but data mining by third parties will come with legal indemnity to GOG. After all, they aren't the ones doing it, right?

GOG reserves the right to collect hardware and software information... and you claim this is not personally identifiable?

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

And this little tool only checks very limited set of software information.

GOG is already utilizing data mining - without enabling Google Analytics, you cannot even access the site.

This only became an issue after the site redesign. Before then, I could fully access GOG with Google, Facebook, and every other data miner blocked. Now it's impossible.

I currently have 168 games in my library. I introduced quite a few friends to GOG (some through gifts I nagged about till they redeemed them, some through personal recommendations). I was delighted to see some new releases to appear in your listings, and ended up spending over $100 on them over these Holidays despite being in a somewhat limiting financial situation.

I wanted to believe that, as a gamer, I will have a place to get games that will let me do this with minimal hassle (no DRM). But I also assumed you would have similar stance to other things, such as respect for personal privacy.

I realize you have no obligation to do so. From a business point of view, selling data (whether aggregated or personally identifiable) makes perfect sense. My fault for making assumptions.

I long hoped for additional functionality to the GOG Downloader. I think I ever wrote an e-mail suggesting making it an optional feature to check the stored version of installers, and notify of any updated versions available.

But that's it. I don't know what Galaxy will do or feature, but after reading the TOS I'm afraid I'll find it too intrusive and bloated. I already find the GOG site intrusive (Google Analytics - the "social media" tools I can block).

You're losing me, guys. Encrypting your installers is a step in the wrong direction for me, as well, and I fear it won't end just at that. Ultimately, if my choice is between undistinguishable Steam or GOG clients, I think Steam will have better deals for a long time yet. And there won't be anything left for me to support on GOG side. As much as I hate the virtual monopoly Valve created, I might as well just admit that most people don't care about DRM -or- privacy and be done throwing money away while fighting windmills.

Remove data mining tools, or third-party scripts from your web site and client. Take a step back and recall your own words about pointlessness of fighting "piracy" by impacting legitimate users and bring back the unrestricted installers we can archive to use at our convenience, whatever other circumstances.

Give us what we came here for and for what we supported your growth - treating us as people -and- respected customers. Not just profit margin data points.

Edit: For all that's been said - thank you for having this discussion in the first place. I shouldn't have had to edit my post to at least acknowledge that, and I apologize for this omission.

How do you mean? I blacklisted it, and there's no problems. Heck, apart from the ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT on the GET request, there's not even any related errors in the console. The site doesn't even try to use it if you don't load it, and no user functionality depends on it.

I understand that overzealous privacy fears are a thing, but at least have the decency to actually try blocking Google Analytics and using the site before claiming that GOG stops working if you do so.

When I had google servers looping back to localhost in host files, GOG wouldn't let me log-in.

It may have been the issue with NoScript, though - don't remember if I had it enabled or disabled.

For some reason even with gog.com white-listed NoScript borks the site up.

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll have to find time to sit down and toy around with this.

Eh, not so much fears as deep and ingrained dislike for the practice. Though the potential for abuse of it cannot be denied (hell, U.S. TLAs outright proved that with the whole "we only gather metadata" circus).

i'm using NoScript with only gog.com whitelisted and it works.

They are also using the google font api iirc, i don't know if things might break there when you block all google services ?
(though given that google is blocked in certain countries, it would certainly be preferable if it worked nonetheless)

good thing you can always take a step back ;). they already said that they won't do that anymore.

Yes, there is a major and extremely annoying looping bug on GOG site. I think it's related to HTTPS mess and poor support for it here. Many games pages simply don't open until you refresh them 20 or so times (some GOG mirrors don't have that bug). Plus log in problem occurred quite a lot to me too. I'm using Adblock Plus and HTTPSeverywhere.