Message from the MPQ Team About Recent Server Issues (8/5)

Unknown

esoxnepa wrote:

Rico Dredd wrote:

:shock:
Also, that complaint is total **** from a legal perspective. If you were to buy, say, a book, and a week later it's on sale, do you also think you could get a refund for what you paid more? .

Yes, depending on your state, absolutely.

Seriously? I doubt that very much

Unknown

I'm European and have a degree in law, so while I may not be qualified to comment on the finer details of U.S. civil law, that is a pretty fundamental principle of contract law. I doubt it's different in the U.S. (picture, for a moment, what would happen if it were different. Stores would never ever put anything on sale again, because people would come running waving receipts and clamouring for refunds. Besides, it would make a contractual agreement pointless if one party could void it as easily as that.)
Also, the one complaining gives his location as "Europe". Apart from British civil law, which is a little different (that is, system and methodology are totally different, but we regularly arrive at the same outcome), European law of obligation (which is the part of civil law that contains contract law) is largely descended from Roman law, so the principles are the same everywhere. And like I said, that one is pretty basic.

Unknown

Rico Dredd wrote:

:shock:
Also, that complaint is total **** from a legal perspective. If you were to buy, say, a book, and a week later it's on sale, do you also think you could get a refund for what you paid more? When you fill your car up, do you come back for a refund if gas has gotten cheaper the next day? You chose to pay the price that was asked at the time. You thereby entered into a contract. And you didn't make "unless it gets cheaper in the future" a condition. Wrong expectations about the future development of prices are your own problem.

Anyway, thanks for fixing the issues, devs. Server problems just happen. We've experienced plenty of server trouble at university, with the tech stuff getting hectic and us teaching and research assistants leaning back or going for lunch until it was fixed. It really wasn't the end of the world. I had to wait a bit longer for my rewards; so what? It was a Monday morning and I had to work anyway. To my US friends, the server outage was during the night. The Deadpool PvE was over, and it was merely the last hour of the Thor PvP, the hour during which most people I know simply shield and wait anyway. Simmer down, folks, it was a minor annoyance, not nearly the end of the world.

We're not talking about sales, we're talking about virtual money devaluation. All other parameters in the game are exactly the same.

Unknown

Kelbris wrote:

For the money you spent, I could probably give you a list of games that'd keep you occupied for 5 years.

I mean, I wouldn't do it because that's probably going to be about 80 games, but still.

Are you gonna play this game for 5 years?

I don't know. So far, it's the first time I played a game for more than 6 months at a competitive level.

I tried many other games (video games I mean), and they did not catch my interest.

MPQ is not the most expensive game you could play. Magic the Gathering is way more expensive. You pay something like $12 per session it can be more), which can last from a couple of minutes to 3 hours...

MPQ is so-called Free to Play, and that changes the way most players think the game should be played.

From what I can read here, it's the F2P against P2W war. The formers bashing the latters for spending money to win.

There's nothing to be done against this. Not a big deal.

HailMary

arktos1971 wrote:

We're not talking about sales, we're talking about virtual money devaluation. All other parameters in the game are exactly the same.

Even if it was a currency devaluation issue, let's say you exchanged 1000 euros for USD two days ago, and today the USD dropped in value by 20%, AFAIK, no one is under any obligation to refund you the 200-euro difference.

Unknown

We're not talking about a virtual currency that is available through a stock exchange, subject to speculation. It can't be traded.

The devaluation is caused by an original overprice.

The fact that the devaluation was caused by the True Healing "riot" would have to be proved. It is quite unlikely.

HailMary

arktos1971 wrote:

We're not talking about a virtual currency that is available through a stock exchange, subject to speculation. It can't be traded.

Thus, my emphasis on "if." It's not a currency devaluation issue.

arktos1971 wrote:

The devaluation is caused by an original overprice.

Relevance? And anyway, all pricing is relative.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

arktos1971 wrote:

We're not talking about a virtual currency that is available through a stock exchange, subject to speculation. It can't be traded.

Thus, my emphasis on "if." It's not a currency devaluation issue.

arktos1971 wrote:

The devaluation is caused by an original overprice.

Relevance? And anyway, all pricing is relative.

Since it is an online means of payment based on actual money, it is a devaluation.

Relevance ? They devalued it significantly.

HailMary

arktos1971 wrote:

Since it is an online means of payment based on actual money, it is a devaluation.

Relevance ? They devalued it significantly.

I was referring to the irrelevance of your claim that there was an "original overprice."

And yes, they reduced the cost of Iso. While it'd be real nice if they refunded you some money, you haven't "lost" any money. Similarly, if you bought a PS3 for $400, and the price drops to $300 a month later, you didn't suddenly "lose" $100.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

arktos1971 wrote:

Since it is an online means of payment based on actual money, it is a devaluation.

Relevance ? They devalued it significantly.

I was referring to the irrelevance of your claim that there was an "original overprice."

And yes, they reduced the cost of Iso. While it'd be real nice if they refunded you some money, you haven't "lost" any money. Similarly, if you bought a PS3 for $400, and the price drops to $300 a month later, you didn't suddenly "lose" $100.

Thing is, a PS3 drop in price is the trend in new technology. It is not virtual. My roster is not "getting old and outdated", hence no need for devaluation.

In MPQ, there has not been any change. That's why I said : the parameters are the same.

I did not ask for a refund, I asked for a compensation in Iso, for the amount of the devaluation. Spending the money was a choice. The devaluation was theirs, at the expense of people who spent money to max their roster out. As you know, there is no advantage (it is even the contrary) to have a maxed roster.

Had I won more with a maxed roster financed with purchased Iso, I could not complain, but that's not the case. Do you see my point ?

HailMary

arktos1971 wrote:

Thing is, a PS3 drop in price is the trend in new technology. It is not virtual. My roster is not "getting old and outdated", hence no need for devaluation.

In MPQ, there has not been any change. That's why I said : the parameters are the same.

I did not ask for a refund, I asked for a compensation in Iso, for the amount of the devaluation. Spending the money was a choice. The devaluation was theirs, at the expense of people who spent money to max their roster out.

The PS3 had its first (and second) price drop long before new consoles surpassed it. It wasn't "outdated" when it first experienced a price drop. You've now reduced your argument to "devaluing the PS3 without changing any parameters is totally okay, because some other things are similarly devalued." I hope I don't need to spell out how vacuous this argument is.

If you think there's a huge difference between "physical" and "virtual" goods in this context, go ahead and replace "PS3" with "e-book." The same argument applies. "This e-book I bought experienced a $5 price drop a month after I bought it, so I'm obviously entitled to a free $5 e-book because the price drop clearly hurt me." is what you're essentially saying here, and it's silly.

arktos1971 wrote:

As you know, there is no advantage (it is even the contrary) to have a maxed roster.

Says the guy who used to repeatedly sneer about how sad it was that I couldn't enjoy the wondrous glory of maxed-everything-ever the way he did. You're simply adorable when you're punching yourself in the face. Please continue doing so.

arktos1971 wrote:

Had I won more with a maxed roster financed with purchased Iso, I could not complain, but that's not the case. Do you see my point ?

I see it and it's wrong. The fact that you bought (so much) Iso means you saw positive utility in Iso. Pretending that Iso suddenly has zero utility because your maxed-to-the-gills roster does not make you win more than everyone else is absurd.

It's absurd even if you completely ignore the fact that having more Iso does generally improve performance potential, from giving you the ability to buy more boosts, to letting you skip more in PVP, to leveling your characters. The fact that you didn't automatically become the Supreme Grandmaster of MPQ simply because you bought a massive amount of Iso does not mean having more Iso imparts zero advantage.

Unknown

Thanks, HailMary. Exactly this.

If you buy a pair of trousers at a store, and later on you could get the same pair of trousers for, say, 10 bucks less, the trousers aren't outdated either. The company just chooses to sell them for a different price. You entered into a contract where you agreed to pay the original price for them, thereby accepting the exchange value as correct, because otherwise you wouldn't have bought them. You can't ask for an extra pair of socks thrown in for you because of "devaluation". It's the same thing here, no matter if virtual currency or not. They were offering, you bought it at that value.
And seeing less utility in something you bought than you did at the time you bought it is exactly the same thing. Not the other party's fault if you change your mind later on.
It's a free market. That's the way it works.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

arktos1971 wrote:

As you know, there is no advantage (it is even the contrary) to have a maxed roster.

Says the guy who used to repeatedly sneer about how sad it was that I couldn't enjoy the wondrous glory of maxed-everything-ever the way he did. You're simply adorable when you're punching yourself in the face. Please continue doing so.

I should have specified "competitive" advantage.

As for the rest, that's your opinion.

Unknown

Rico Dredd wrote:

Thanks, HailMary. Exactly this.

If you buy a pair of trousers at a store, and later on you could get the same pair of trousers for, say, 10 bucks less, the trousers aren't outdated either. The company just chooses to sell them for a different price. You entered into a contract where you agreed to pay the original price for them, thereby accepting the exchange value as correct, because otherwise you wouldn't have bought them. You can't ask for an extra pair of socks thrown in for you because of "devaluation". It's the same thing here, no matter if virtual currency or not. They were offering, you bought it at that value.
And seeing less utility in something you bought than you did at the time you bought it is exactly the same thing. Not the other party's fault if you change your mind later on.
It's a free market. That's the way it works.

Once again, we're talking about virtual money, not linen. I haven't signed nor accepted any contract while purchasing this virtual money. But thanks for reminding me about this important fact. I'll check with Google.

If you want to compare situations, you should do so with comparable situations. Do you have any other example with virtual currency ?

Choosing linen and new technologies as comparison, is not relevant. Since you have a degree in law, you should know that.

atomzed

arktos1971 wrote:

Rico Dredd wrote:

Thanks, HailMary. Exactly this.

If you buy a pair of trousers at a store, and later on you could get the same pair of trousers for, say, 10 bucks less, the trousers aren't outdated either. The company just chooses to sell them for a different price. You entered into a contract where you agreed to pay the original price for them, thereby accepting the exchange value as correct, because otherwise you wouldn't have bought them. You can't ask for an extra pair of socks thrown in for you because of "devaluation". It's the same thing here, no matter if virtual currency or not. They were offering, you bought it at that value.
And seeing less utility in something you bought than you did at the time you bought it is exactly the same thing. Not the other party's fault if you change your mind later on.
It's a free market. That's the way it works.

Once again, we're talking about virtual money, not linen. I haven't signed nor accepted any contract while purchasing this virtual money. But thanks for reminding me about this important fact. I'll check with Google.

If you want to compare situations, you should do so with comparable situations. Do you have any other example with virtual currency ?

Choosing linen and new technologies as comparison, is not relevant. Since you have a degree in law, you should know that.

How would virtual currency change the context?

To put it simply, what Rico and Hailmary is saying are:
1) A product was put on sale for XX dollars.
2) You purchase the product out of your own free will.
3) Sometime later, the same product was discounted at YY dollars.
4) Because you willingly pay for the product for XX dollars, there's no recourse for you to claim 'compensation'.

Which i fully agree.

Since you like to talk about 'currency', let's substitute the product with actual currency.
1) A money changer put up the sale of 1 Euro dollars for the price of $1.5 USD.
2) I think that the deal was worth it, and I paid $150 USD for 100 Euro dollars.
3) A week later, the money changer is selling 1 Euro dollars for the price of $1.2 USD.

In this example, I entered into a contract (1 Euro to $ 1.5 USD) and paid for a 'product' (in this case, Euro dollars). If the terms of sales change a week later, do you think i have legal recourse to claim for the difference in prices?

This example is using currency, which is as close to virtual currency as it can be.

(Note: the fact that the virtual currency valuation is determined solely by D3 do not matter, bec in national currency, a country can choose to use a fix exchange rate as determined by the country govt.

Note 2: the fact that money can be traded and D3 currency can't be traded, also does not matter. Because a country currency can be taken off the exchange, i.e. other countries refused to trade it nor accept it for transaction.)

Unknown

I think you don't understand the point. You try to make a point mixing the comparison between a product and a currency that can fluctuate in a stock exchange.

That's not a big deal anyway. I'll have the matter investigated.

Several things here are just not right.

HailMary

Ah, so in Arktos-ville, "virtual money" (whatever you think that is) is super-special, and cannot be compared to anything else at all. Also, all trousers are made of linen, because wool is the devil's textile. In that case, what's the virtual-money precedent for being "compensated" on stuff you bought a month before a price drop? I'd hate to think that you were simply conjuring your argument out of thin air.

arktos1971 wrote:

Several things here are just not right.

On this point, we completely agree, though probably not in the way you'd like.

P.S. - Stuffing money into Punisher (into his pants, perhaps? or are we spoon-feeding it to him?) to make him stronger is a strange image.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

Ah, so in Arktos-ville, "virtual money" (whatever you think that is) is super-special, and cannot be compared to anything else at all. Also, all trousers are made of linen, because wool is the devil's textile. In that case, what's the virtual-money precedent for being "compensated" on stuff you bought a month before a price drop? I'd hate to think that you were simply conjuring your argument out of thin air.

arktos1971 wrote:

Several things here are just not right.

On this point, we completely agree, though probably not in the way you'd like.

P.S. - Stuffing money into Punisher (into his pants, perhaps? or are we spoon-feeding it to him?) to make him stronger is a strange image.

I like the way you caricature things to try and make your point

atomzed

arktos1971 wrote:

I think you don't understand the point. You try to make a point mixing the comparison between a product and a currency that can fluctuate in a stock exchange.

That's not a big deal anyway. I'll have the matter investigated.

Several things here are just not right.

Yes, I definitely don't understand your point which is why I I posted.

I did not want to talk about currency, but since you insist that virtual currency makes it a different matter, I decided to use money exchange as a illustration example.

The money changer example happens in real life, is easy to understand, and fits in exactly with what has happened to you. So if you think that you *should* get compensation with ISO 'devaluation' (your words) then you should be able to argue the same with the money exchange example too.

Cos if you can convince me that a person can have legal cause to sue D3 (what you are doing now), then I will be able to sue *any* money changer. Or for this matter, any shop that had a discount.

I probably can stop working cos I would be able to comfortably retire from the ridiculous amount of money I get just from suing money changer

So pls, feel free to explain your perspective in the money changer example. I am really, really interested to find out your thinking.

Unknown

arktos1971 wrote:

Rico Dredd wrote:

Thanks, HailMary. Exactly this.

If you buy a pair of trousers at a store, and later on you could get the same pair of trousers for, say, 10 bucks less, the trousers aren't outdated either. The company just chooses to sell them for a different price. You entered into a contract where you agreed to pay the original price for them, thereby accepting the exchange value as correct, because otherwise you wouldn't have bought them. You can't ask for an extra pair of socks thrown in for you because of "devaluation". It's the same thing here, no matter if virtual currency or not. They were offering, you bought it at that value.
And seeing less utility in something you bought than you did at the time you bought it is exactly the same thing. Not the other party's fault if you change your mind later on.
It's a free market. That's the way it works.

Once again, we're talking about virtual money, not linen. I haven't signed nor accepted any contract while purchasing this virtual money. But thanks for reminding me about this important fact. I'll check with Google.

If you want to compare situations, you should do so with comparable situations. Do you have any other example with virtual currency ?

Choosing linen and new technologies as comparison, is not relevant. Since you have a degree in law, you should know that.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you don't even understand the most basic principles of contract law. A contract is defined as a simple agreement between to parties, be it written or not. If you buy something, all necessary is agreement about object and price. One makes an ofer, the other accepts. That's it. Here, Contract 1.01, recommended reading for people who think "contract" = "piece of paper": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract Those rules hold true for transactions conducted via the internet just as well. The object is completely irrelevant. You can buy books, linen, technology, software, virtual currency (if you want an example, have you heard of bitcoins? Guess what, you can buy those too), ... and the rules are always the same.

It's funny with law. Some of us have earned a degree and work in that field. Some of us haven't and usually have never seen a courthouse from the inside, but think they know everything just as well, or even better. Even if you point it out to them, they'll insist. As it happens, those are the people that keep lawyers fed.