It did sound distinctly non-lawyerish in some places (which is a good thing for what you are aiming at).

It certainly sounds better than anything I have ever written, (well maybe expect my God of War/Breaking Bad slash fanfiction). But I really don't want to be the poor schmock who has to interpret it. My stuff is always very matter of fact. I distinctly remember writing the articles of association for some small "after school helping poor students cafe/workshop" as a favour for a friend. I was somewhat bummed that they took the three pages standard draft they found on the internet instead of my 13 page draft. Maybe it was better to understand and less intimidating, but if they ever needed to liquidate real property or turn it into a publicly traded company, they wish they would have taken my draft. (I was fresh out of university and liked to show off.)

Btw, how about updating the ToS. ;-P

" Use of the Service requires a Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Mac OS X compatible computer that meets or exceeds the minimum hardware specifications "

That might not go so well with some people who just collect games or their soundtracks and never actually play the games :p
..or use Win8, those bastards..

Soundtracks and such are extras . Not without reason. The primary service are the games. You could start a debate on how much the boni are part of the service, but that is pretty much up for debate and can ultimately only be answered by a judge.

You know that sits in some form in every digital purchase agreement, just to cover their ass. And it's a good thing, I can see people going against GOG because the game "doesn't work properly" while keeping the DRM-free version AND the money. Eh... Of course they can't. They don't want to get sued if their project happens to go under because of unexpected happenings. If you were in their shoes and something really bad out of your hands would happen to a project you love, would you want to fight on a legal front as well, just because you don't have enough problems as it is?

My understanding of legal matters is closer to nil than x for any positive x, but to me it just sounds silly that a service would require you to be able to use (in the way the store intended) the product you want to purchase. Almost like if a store stated that to buy running shoes you're required to not be in a wheel chair.

Where the ruling party is concerned, there's been a counter-revolution and a major faction switch. But what I means was, there are two parties, the Liberal Democratic Party (spoiler: neither liberal nor democratic) and the Communist Party (spoiler: not communist), whose whole business is hating on Putin, that's how they collect votes and earn money. It was them who introduced the bill in back in 2008, and United Russia (who held 315/450 seats) said, "uhh, that's pretty undemocratic, how about no". They're thinking of reintroducing it however, and it may very well pass now, what with all the recent protests.

Awesome. Happens all the time on morning news whenever they invite a politician.

I think it's not there to protect people with unsupported OS, I think it's there to protect GOG against people with unsupported OS.

Well, if you try to make claims based on that you can't run in running shoes the wheelchair will be an issue.

Any product or service you buy always has an intended application. GOG has to make it clear, as (unlike running shoes) it can be a problem with games. If GOG would write nothing, than you could assume that also Win 2000 or even Win 95 could be supported.

It is not a "you are not allowed without" clause but "we only guarantee service on" clause. You can buy the stuff with OS/2, but you don't have claims against GOG if they don't run.

That's a given, but I still think the way it's put feels shady, and if the term "service" isn't well defined somewhere, it's also confusing. As I see it, for it to matter here, the service would have to be providing video game executables that work on the listed OSs, but that'd mean that if Blood 2 just doesn't work on someone's minimum reqs meeting computer, GOG is charging for a service but not providing it.
..or that's how it seems to my commoner's mind. If the ToS stated something like "Dat phat customer accepts that the games provided may (or "will" for serious face) not function on OSs not listed and GOG isn't the father of the babbies that may come out of you trying 'em on dem funky OSs, son." instead, it'd be less ominous. (That's the best legaleze I can write)

That makes it a lot less nefarious seeming, then. It still sounds a bit awkward/weird/something to someone who doesn't know the difference between a crime and an act followed by a sneer.

GOG does offer refunds. And I bet if a preordered game doesn't get released for some reason, customers will still get refunds, even those who downloaded extras. (Again, without legal training, I can't say whether this will be all due to GOG's customer care policy or a legal requirement. In the EU, probably the latter. In Russia, they may as well substitute goatse.)

Kickstarter: Indiegogo: Indiegogo donors forfeit their right to get a contribution and/or to sue. Kickstarter backers do not. So it is perfectly possible to fundraise without that clause.

Donating to a project =/= preorder. Mistaking preorder for giving something money so it can develop further is a huge mistake - in case of preorder, you give a middle man your money, which then gets spent on buying the game for you on release. The money's just sitting in the hands of the middleman in the meantime. On the other hand, donating to a project that's not finished yet is something entirely different. It's like you went up to a friend, gave him 100 bucks and told him: "Here you go mate, now you can make that game you always dreamed of!" But your friend fails, yet uses your money to develop the game. And then you come up to him and say "Hey, I said to give me the game when you're finished. I want my money back!" The difference between backing up a project and preordering a game is substantially different. One's effectively a donation, the other one's paying in advance for already completed product.

And to the point of GOG refunding money - go ahead, buy a game that happens to not work on your computer, download it, and the tell support that it doesn't work. Good luck with getting the money back. The sole purpose of the refund thing is so you have a way out if you somehow manage to grab a wrong game.

As you can see, it's not possible. Kickstarter's got the very same clause as Indiegogo has, just worded differently. Indiegogo says: "You can only ask for a refund if your funds have been used for something else than the project," and Kickstarter says: "You can only ask for a refund in case a completed project doesn't grant you your rewards." Either case, if the project fails in the making, you can't ask for a refund. Actually, indegogo protects your interests more than Kickstarter, even if it's on a fairly questionable grounds (I need that island in pacific so I can develop in peace!)

edit: Oh wait, I red it a few more times and now I get it. Well that's stupid. So if your estimates are off, or the project fails for a ton of other reasons that just can't be predicted, you have to somehow magic the money you spent on it in the first place into existence. Heh, that's just plain dumb, how on earth are you supposed to predict all possible problems that can come with development? Even big and experienced studios often require more time and money than they've estimated in the first place.