negative goodwill for a nerf on rag

Unknown

"That's not really a good analogy. A more accurate analogy would be: you signed up for Netflix and fell in love with a movie or TV show on it. And then Netflix removed that show or movie. And that happens all the time."

I want to improve this anology too.

if money invested in this game is compared to money subscription in NETFLIX, then rag should be consider as 100 movies (if netflix has 103 movies only), would you pay if you know that the movie storage of netflix will be decreased to 3 movies in a few hours?

why i want to post this message? because when i used rag last night ( i used it a few times last night..sigh), i talked to myself: i DONT NEED SO MANY SLOTS

i had spider , THOR , WOLVERINE, HULK, CAPTAIN AMERICA all maxed.

it means: IF netflix told me they won't offer kubrick movies, STAR WARS, INDIANA JONES any more, why i pay for it?

Looking forward for any reply. Thanks for everone in this thread again.......................

Unknown

There's definitely been worse cases of consumer fraud for virtual goods, like what Zynga did (accept cash payments towards a game they were planning on shutting down for months without telling anyone).

Unknown

kubrick wrote:

"That's not really a good analogy. A more accurate analogy would be: you signed up for Netflix and fell in love with a movie or TV show on it. And then Netflix removed that show or movie. And that happens all the time."

I want to improve this anology too.

if money invested in this game is compared to money subscription in NETFLIX, then rag should be consider as 100 movies (if netflix has 103 movies only), would you pay if you know that the movie storage of netflix will be decreased to 3 movies in a few hours?

why i want to post this message? because when i used rag last night ( i used it a few times last night..sigh), i talked to myself: i DONT NEED SO MANY SLOTS

i had spider , THOR , WOLVERINE, HULK, CAPTAIN AMERICA all maxed.

it means: IF netflix told me they won't offer kubrick movies, STAR WARS, INDIANA JONES any more, why i pay for it?

Looking forward for any reply. Thanks for everone in this thread again.......................

That doesn't improve my analogy at all, that takes a **** all over my analogy. Rag isn't "100 movies." Rag is one of 30 characters, albeit a popular one for a certain subset of the player base. It'd actually be more like Netflix pulling your (1) favourite movie. Again, my original analogy is still way more accurate than anything you posted.

You didn't pay for Rag. You paid for HP, which you chose to invest in Rag. You could easily have invested in tokens, shields, or anything else purchasable by HP. That's a risk you take when you play a game that's labelled in Preview Edition, has a history of character changes, and a history of altering the game play mechanics.

You got what you paid for. You chose to spend it in a way that you're not happy with. Sucks, and D3/Demiurge should hopefully learn from this about better customer communication. But you're overreacting and flying off the handle here.

Unknown

I think the lesson is better customer communication. The end result will be some players will be hesitant to invest more into this game. Jozier, thanks for your input as we now know legal action cannot be pursued (not that i think anyone would have) but that just how the feels are at the moment...well....yea. I think those in the know...know.

Unknown

"If you actually worked at a part of a bank that dealt with fraud you would know how rubbish your posturing is.

Rags was worth precisely $0 when you traded HP for him, and after the nerf he is still worth precisely $0. You have lost no money as a result of the nerf so fraud is out the window."

i know that it is not necessary to find a lawyer because it is similar to some of the bank products: the devil is inside the details.

but i do not agree that the rag is worthless. it is because if i sell my account on ebay or yahoo, someone will buy it.

Unknown

I'm a lawyer (hence the **** name, it's applicable since I'm a lawyer named John, deal with it lol), here's my take:

You spent your money on HP, not a specific character guaranteed to remain static. Here are the points where I think you would lose, chronologically, with the next one assuming the last didn't happen as I stated:

1) You paid for x amount of HP, received x amount, transaction complete. No case.
2) You purchased the HP with the intent to purchase Ragnarok cards. You received your Rags. No case.
3) You purchased the HP with the intent to purchase this specific instance of Ragnarok at his power level as it stood last week. I haven't reviewed their terms of use, but there is no chance D3 did not reserve the right to change characters at their discretion.

Essentially you purchased digital money to purchase in game items. The contract ended when you bought the HP. If the courts decided to be nice and look at your intent, you would argue "I only paid X for Rags, assuming he would stay." The court would then say D3 explicitly reserved the rights to augment the game as they see fit, you agreed to their terms of use, you should have done your due diligence and read what you accepted.

Even if you skipped the HP step and paid real dollars directly for Rags, it wouldn't hold since they have free reign to change. There was NO guarantee that you were buying "Ragnarok with 2 AP Thunderclap, not subject to change."

Lastly, for a realistic standpoint, you're paying a lawyer $2K to get you back your $100, not worth it

Unknown

kubrick wrote:

"If you actually worked at a part of a bank that dealt with fraud you would know how rubbish your posturing is.

Rags was worth precisely $0 when you traded HP for him, and after the nerf he is still worth precisely $0. You have lost no money as a result of the nerf so fraud is out the window."

So you want to ignore that that HP may have been purchased with cash?

Troll.

Unknown

I think there is no legal standing here with our two lawyer friends helping explaining the situation. What can be said though is the lack of communication and potential customer loss due to undesirable actions (no matter how right or wrong they are).

Unknown

Losing customer faith is as bad or worse than losing a lawsuit.

Eddiemon

kubrick wrote:

thank you for your support ...the first thing came to my mind when i found this nerf happed:

can we change the interest rate of our bank product without annoucement?

the answer is negative for sure.

And your time in a financial institution has taught you that financial regulations apply to all industries and all products equally?

i am 43 now and worked in bank business for almost 20 years. frankly speaking, i seldom know a conpany doing business like this.

Well you have led a sheltered life. Large parts of my working life revolve around getting vendors to deliver according to agreed scopes and timelines. And that's for serious infrastructure, not a game.

i play some other android games and there are some powerful characters existing in those games. the usual way is to design a more powerful character to overide the previous one.
p.s.:i like kubrick movie and watched clockwork orange several times.

I am unsure what is more powerful than a first round kill. That is kind of the pinnacle of character power really.

And a power race is a horrible game design philosophy because your Rag would still now be suboptimal AND you would have a new character you feel compelled to drop money on. There are plenty of games that run this model and prey on people's weaknesses, and I'm happy that D3 are avoiding that ugly route.

Eddiemon

zhadum wrote:

kubrick wrote:

"If you actually worked at a part of a bank that dealt with fraud you would know how rubbish your posturing is.

Rags was worth precisely $0 when you traded HP for him, and after the nerf he is still worth precisely $0. You have lost no money as a result of the nerf so fraud is out the window."

So you want to ignore that that HP may have been purchased with cash?

Troll.

No, but the legal definition of fraud does not include 'purchased with cash'. If you are going to come out and claim that you work at a bank and that something is fraud then it needs to meet the legal definitions of fraud.

The HP were purchased with cash and he got exactly the HP he purchased. So there was no fraud there either.

They changed something and it may be upsetting and even unfair, but it isn't fraud.

Eddiemon

DumDumDugn wrote:

There's definitely been worse cases of consumer fraud for virtual goods, like what Zynga did (accept cash payments towards a game they were planning on shutting down for months without telling anyone).

I couldn't find any record of a lawsuit on this. Lots of copyright, trademark and insider trading stuff but no consumer fraud ones.

If you have a reference can you let me know because these technicalities are interesting.

Unknown

Eddiemon wrote:

DumDumDugn wrote:

There's definitely been worse cases of consumer fraud for virtual goods, like what Zynga did (accept cash payments towards a game they were planning on shutting down for months without telling anyone).

I couldn't find any record of a lawsuit on this. Lots of copyright, trademark and insider trading stuff but no consumer fraud ones.

If you have a reference can you let me know because these technicalities are interesting.

Probably because its not worth small claims court or even a class action lawsuit.

Spoit

MarvelMan wrote:

jozier wrote:

A more accurate analogy would be: you signed up for Netflix and fell in love with a movie or TV show on it. And then Netflix removed that show or movie. And that happens all the time.

This made me think about netflix pulling Star Wars and replacing it in their collection with Space Balls.

They did recently add spaceballs. I should watch it

Unknown

Hm. Same person? 0_o

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2032

Unknown

your best bet is to send in a ticket to d3 and request that they return your rag down to 1/1 and give you the spent hp on it. you'll still have spent $100 on HP but at least its useable to you now on other characters.

Unknown

thank you for your advice. i sent a ticket to them and wait for their reply. i deleted the game a few hours ago. besides money, i dont like the feeling of being cheated. i think d3 should do better about their communication with their customers in the future. for example, early annoucement about a tremendous change of the game rather than earning money with a strategy like this nerf.

Unknown

This is stupid. I doubt anyone here is actually a lawyer, but regardless. No one is going to sue. It's just unbelievable how the company so willingly takes our money but can't respond or forewarn for that matter when we feel something was unfair. We are being looked at in the face and too on the forums that your opinions only matter if you can make us more money, thanks and goodbye for the money already spent.

I wanted to love this game, and probably would have put more money into it, but won't waste my time if I don't hear back from someone.

Unknown

The ability for an entity to take away your virtual goods is not as ironclad as the entity would like you to believe. That said it'd be pretty weird if a major consumer battle was won because people wanted their pre nerf Ragnarok back.

Unknown

squirrel85 wrote:

This is stupid. I doubt anyone here is actually a lawyer, but regardless. No one is going to sue. It's just unbelievable how the company so willingly takes our money but can't respond or forewarn for that matter when we feel something was unfair. We are being looked at in the face and too on the forums that your opinions only matter if you can make us more money, thanks and goodbye for the money already spent.

I wanted to love this game, and probably would have put more money into it, but won't waste my time if I don't hear back from someone.

There are plenty of actual lawyers here. There is zero legal basis for a suit and anyone still even mentioning lawsuits or legal action is an utter moron.