what people getting real refunds are saying...

hurcules

Not sure if fanning the fire or dousing it, but here is something relevant:

http://9to5mac.com/2014/12/29/app-store ... efunds-eu/

Not sure if this applies to US / Americas, but it is based on the premise of "cool down" period, which is required by law in EU.

Beyond the required 14 days, I believe it is handled case by case basis. Interestingly, at the end of the article:

That 14 day period is extended to a year if a business fails to properly inform consumers of the return period, according to the directive.

So if D3P/Demiurge has no specific guideline / processes on the T&Cs of IAP return policy, would that apply?

wirius

No one's arguing a refund is illegal. They're arguing you complaining to a credit card company that D3 didn't deliver what they promised is fraud. Here's their EULA.

http://www.d3p.us/EULA/MarvelPuzzleQuest/

Some fun things to note:

1. The Game is licensed, not sold, to you by D3PA. By using the Game, you agree to be bound by this EULA. We reserve all rights in and to the Game not expressly granted to you under this EULA.

2. The terms of this EULA will govern any upgrades provided by D3PA that replace and/or supplement the original Game, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license, in which case the terms of that license will govern. You acknowledge that this EULA is concluded solely between you and D3PA, and not with the provider of your device and/or mobile platform operator (e.g., Apple, Samsung, Google, Amazon) (collectively, the “Mobile Platform Operator”), and that D3PA is solely responsible for the Game and the content thereof, except as otherwise provided in this EULA.

3. If there is a charge associated with the Game, you agree to pay that charge. You understand that all purchases and charges made by you are final. You are not entitled to any refund or return for products sold for any reason. Any election to honor a refund or return shall be made at our sole discretion.

4. We can manage, regulate, control, modify or eliminate virtual currency and/or virtual goods, including the price thereof, at our discretion, and will have no liability to you or any third party for any of such actions.

5. You agree not to engage in any of the following conduct through or in connection with the Game: (f) defraud or mislead D3PA or other users;

THE BIG KAHUNA: (j) submit false refund requests to D3PA or any Mobile Platform Operator.

So if you argue that you aren't committing fraud by accusing D3 of falsely denying what they promised you, you only have your opinion. By law, and fact, you are committing fraud.

Unknown

Jamie Madrox wrote:

edited for content

Here's the thing. Apple/Google/Visa/Mastercard/whomever have no way of/don't bother checking with a vendor to see if the refund request is valid. They just refund you or not depending on what you tell them and their policies. Vendors don't generally contact the payment provider until AFTER they receive the notice that a charge back occurred on a case by case basis because some of those refund requests may actually be valid. That said, D3 doesn't HAVE to contact Apple or Google and tell them the chargeback was invalid, etc. If they did it's a pretty big black mark on your credit record (as mentioned before). So instead they are just sandboxing the players, effectively taking back the product they are getting the refund for.

Would it be nice for them to be able to go through everyone's accounts and completely roll back all the HP spent, etc? Sure. It's incredibly unreasonable though. What about all of the rewards you got because of having that character? And all of the things that you spent all of those rewards on? What people are asking for is not nearly as simple as they think it is; nor as reasonable.

"Here's the thing. Apple/Google/Visa/Mastercard/whomever have no way of/don't bother checking with a vendor to see if the refund request is valid."

Again, not the customers issue. Customer makes the request; what action the other party chooses to take is not the customers responsibility.

Unknown

^^ based on that.

MPQ wins. Purchases are final. Will quit bishing now. GG.

JamieMadrox

MikeHock wrote:

Jamie Madrox wrote:

MikeHock wrote:

Jamie Madrox wrote:

I'm going to make this as simple as possible.

Money was spent for HP; HP was given. Asking for your money back from your credit card company is fraud because you received what you paid for in the condition that you expected it to arrive in. What you do with it from there is up to you. It's no secret, especially to anyone on these forums for any period of time or who play games with IAPs, that there is almost always no way to reverse IAPs.

Both Apple and Google require you to first contact the company that you purchased the game from to request a refund. Lots of people have not been doing this. In fact, the now removed thread about this was encouraging people to not bother contacting D# and just say you did. This is fraud.

In either of the above cases you're committing credit card fraud and should be happy that you're only being sandboxed and not being reported to authorities.

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on that one (in my best Lumberg voice)

Requesting a refund is not fraud.

You're right. Requesting a refund is not fraud. Requesting a refund and lying to get it is. D3 had a refund policy for changed characters in place. Sell it for the increased ISO/HP. It's not a full refund, and I don't think it's a particularly good one, but its the one they have and the one we have to live with.

The issue is that people are not contacting D3 and asking for refunds. They are going to Google and Apple and requesting refunds. Both Apple and Google require you to first try to work it out with D3. If you don't and tell then that you did, that's fraud.

I think a lot of the issue here is that people are equating the money they are spending with what they are using their HP for. Unfortunately you're not spending your money on X-Force covers or TGT covers. You're spending it on HP. HP you received as expected and then spent. That's where this argument ends. You spent money on HP. You got HP. What you chose to spend that HP on is your business.

Switchman wrote:

LOL claiming it's CC fraud. Fanboy much?

Lying to reverse a charge on a credit card is fraud.

On this forum, I have always instructed anyone looking for a refund to first contact D3 to try and resolve the issue before going to a service provider, so I am aware of what is considered the proper procedure. While I do understand that lying to reverse a charge is fraud, contacting your service provider without contacting D3 first is not fraud. If a service provider chooses to issue a refund without asking for, or obtaining evidence that a resolution was attempted, that is not the customers issue, and I do not see how that would be considered fraud.

Referring to the text I bolded and underlined; both Apple and Google require you to first contact the vendor, as you said you instruct people to do, before requesting a refund from them. If you request a refund from them and say you contacted the vendor, when you did not, then you are lying, which is fraud. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

Unknown

hurcules wrote:

Not sure if fanning the fire or dousing it, but here is something relevant:

http://9to5mac.com/2014/12/29/app-store ... efunds-eu/

Not sure if this applies to US / Americas, but it is based on the premise of "cool down" period, which is required by law in EU.

Beyond the required 14 days, I believe it is handled case by case basis. Interestingly, at the end of the article:

That 14 day period is extended to a year if a business fails to properly inform consumers of the return period, according to the directive.

So if D3P/Demiurge has no specific guideline / processes on the T&Cs of IAP return policy, would that apply?

Probably not... by my understanding your purchase is with Apple/Google/Steam so the cooling off period applies to them and I would be shocked if they didn't have the relevant info somewhere to cover themselves. Even steam (the final boss battle of getting refunds) has the info on 14 day cooling off periods in place.

@Wirius.

EULAs (and contracts in general) can't modify statutory rights (in the EU at least).
You have failed to demonstrate the refund requests are false so how is that a big kahuna exactly? As long as ppl are accurate in their reasons then it is NOT false (and NOT fraud).
The transaction is with Apple/Google so the EULA which is ENTIRELY BETWEEN YOU AND D3PA by your own quotation has no relevance to the refund request to Apple/Google etc....
The bit about refunds presumably relates to attempting to get refunds from D3PA directly since D3's EULA isn't binding upon the mobile platforms.

The EULA is, as far as I can tell, mainly aimed at avoiding D3 having any liability to you directly. It is not binding upon mobile platform operators or your transaction with said mobile platform. That would be governed by your country's laws and the terms and conditions outlined by the mobile platform you gave your money to. Same incidentally with credit card companies and as I said above... a CC charge back (which I 100% do NOT suggest as a plan) would be an issue between you and your mobile platform NOT you and D3. It would be Apple/Google etc who took you to task over it.

And as for your final statement... if someone says to Apple/Google that they spent money with the intention of getting Xforce's covers, they got said covers then, without warning prior to their purchase those covers were changed such that they no longer want them OR would have bought them in that state how are they being dishonest? THAT is what the ppl I am aware of have stated (re: 4Thor actually, not XForce in the cases I know of, but same principal).

As long as ppl do not say anything provably, and objectively untrue to the ppl they request a refund from there is nothing to argue about. Implicit in fraud is deception. The fact you don't agree with their actions is irrelevant.

itstime1234

Tannen wrote:

snlf25 wrote:

Who's gonna go after the people who lawfully request refunds and then are given them by Apple or Google? A request is made, due to customer dissatisfaction that they receive a refund. The entity holding the purse strings then CHOOSES to refund the money or not. Nobody here is claiming their kid did it or any such tinykitty. So the idea that they are committing fraud is laughable. No attorney would touch it and even if they did it would get laughed out of court.

Dissatisfaction in a product does not mean you are entitled to a refund. Some businesses _choose_ to give full refunds at any complaint and for them it's probably a good business decision, as it ensures that they're always the "good guy". However, from an external point of view the customer is NOT, always, right. Sometimes (more often lately) the customer appears to be an over-grown child with large lungs and an entitlement complex a mile long.

Apple and Google don't have a clue what you're claiming when you ask for money back. You go trying to explain "HP this, ISO that" and they'll turn off. They do, however, have a nifty claim back function that they hope people will use correctly. If you claim that you've bought something and it's been changed, they don't question you about it. You're their customer, and like a good business they're assuming you're right, even when you're not. It's easier for them to simply offer a refund and try to claim it back later on.

Being able to obtain money back from them in no way makes your 'refund' legitimate.

snlf25 wrote:

If D3 doesn't want to get debited out of existence, (hold onto your hats, this is going to sound crazy) maybe they should stop pissing off customers. You give bad service bad things happen. The Customer is the arbiter of quality of service. And no, you do not spend money to acquire iso or HP, which then denies you protection. As iso and hp are the currencies of the game you are not BUYING anything - you are converting currency. Which many people feel they were defrauded out of through bait and switch tactics. And even if D3 had a leg to stand on just how much money do you think it would cost to try to serve individual lawsuits on every customer who requested and received (legally) a refund? Total non-starter. Their only recourse is to ban accounts which none of these folks seem to care about. Passionate people who used to love this game and express that with their wallets.

And this is literally what I meant by my third sentence. You feel justified that what you're doing is "right", because this decision to nerf has 'hurt' you. You're willing to defend it to the death and try to convince others that you're actually in the right instead of taking a good hard look at yourself and realising that you're committing a felony.

Also, as stated, you're not even going to be hitting D3 in the pockets. That claim-back that you're so proud of? The fight that you're trying to win $50 at a time? If it even hits D3, it will be classified as a fraudulent claim and will be passed onto an insurance company. It will be written off as a loss if it's too low. I hope no-one claimed back thousands of dollars, cos that sort of money may be worth going after, from an insurer's point of view -- and they'll be the ones looking to recoup costs, not D3.

Bait and switch? Take a look at the "big" picture. You're pissed that a character in a mobile-phone game was nerfed and you choose to fraudulently claim money back. Try explaining that to an impartial arbiter who probably has no idea what a "meta-game defining" character is, but will almost certainly know what a fraudulent claim is. The simple fact is that the goods that you bought for actual, real money didn't change. If you stated that it did on your 'refund', you committed fraud.

snlf25 wrote:

And in my opinion, the fact that they left previous versions of product on sale that they KNOW they have scheduled to be changed can be argued as a bait n switch, especially with the lousy procedure they have of deciding, scheduling, having an hp sale, waiting a week or two while fat stacks roll in, announcing here that changes are coming, waiting a couple more weeks before making an in game announcement while people ignorant of the coming changes keep buying product they don't know is about to be devalued, then announcing in game when it's too late for so many people who had purchased a product in good faith believing it would have a certain value to them. It's like buying a Rolls and taking it home, then in the dead of the night the dealer tows it away and leaves a Gremlin in your driveway for the "fun" and "balance" of your driving experience. You can see why some people might be upset.

Why does everyone make car metaphors? And it's wrong to boot. It's more like you bought a ticket to swap for a car. You chose to exchange that ticket for a Tesla model S, fully knowing that the motor went faster than it should due to a bug in the program that made it over-draw energy. It was deemed dangerous to other road users, so the manufacturer pushed out a software update that scaled the power consumption back. You still have your Tesla. It's safer now, but you're complaining because you liked using it in the original, dangerous manner. You still have the car. You're still not entitled to a refund. You feel like you are, because gosh darn, you really LIKED being able to use it the way that you used to. At most, you may be entitled to another ticket to swap for a different car -- ASSUMING THAT YOU RETURN THE ORIGINAL CAR.

Characters in games get nerfed all the time. It's a shame that you spent your hard earned hps on one of the characters that got nerfed this month.

And finally, none of the above is an excuse to defraud anyone of money. You spent the money. At the time you purchased those hps, you wanted to spend it. From that time to the time that the nerf was announced, you were probably very happy that you did spend that money. Since the nerf was announced though, your feelings in the matter have changed. Your self-righteous anger does not entitle you to your money back. If you sat down and actually worked it out with D3, they may be nice and offer you a refund/swap. They don't have to though. You can't even claim that they owe you 100% of what you spent back, as due to the OPness of XFW you've probably won more iso/hp than you should have since you bought those covers.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt. I don't think it's an excuse for this type of behaviour, but I know what you're feeling.

Cheers.

This is amongst the most preposterous posts that is mired in opinion pretending to be facts.

1. Just because Google or Apple giving refunds does not constitute the individual is right it also does not mean they are wrong. Your definition is that they are solely entitled to hp and not the underlying item it purchased and on its face there is merit in that but what's the point of hp. Could the same outcome not be reached if they credited my account with the cash I put in and let me buy covers at a dollar value. If yes then this hp is merely a ploy so that the no one can say tey spent money on the character and historically courts will look past this middle transaction when it has no bonafide reason to exist.

2. Your car analogy is just as bad. Even still what they do would only be as bad if tesla was in the drawing board of that change and a change was going to occur in the future and the tesla individual did not say that the speed is being looked at. No above the board company would be looking to make those changes and not inform its customers that this item may be changing in the future.

3. Just because Google and Apple may not know the terms hp and ISO doesnt mean anything. I work near Google and Apple and can tell you they have the cream and the crop employees. You don't think they are aware of games that offer in game currency purchases. Do you really think mpq is the only game with this model. No so both Google and Apple are more than likely aware about how the system works and can make their own reasonable decision as to refund or not.

4. This is nothing like piracy so stop the comparison this is a return of someone's own money. Piracy doesn't say put money in and get stuff then in the case of something dramatically changing you may get your money back.

5. I am not sure you know what fraud is. You are more going with a misrepresentation of facts than fraud. From what I have seen the tickets sent in are based on fairly accurate facts so not sure how that rises to the point of fraud.

6. Finally how on earth would you even know what policy mpq has as far as insurance. Having a deductible so low that a 10 dollar refund would be covered by insurance would mean some crazy high premiums. Newsflash insurance companies are out to make money. If that is their current policy when they see this wave of claims coming in you can more than expect a serious spoke in premiums payments.

I would add more but I actually work. Oh and for the record i won my x force and have never done said Google ticket so don't even bother trying to paint me as someone trying to justify my actions.

TheOncomingStorm

I see both sides of this.

Looking at it strictly from a video game perspective, if I saved up my money to buy Mike Tyson's Punch Out, bought it, then the company sent a patch that replaced Mike Tyson with Mr. Dream, I would not be happy. And this is where the game plays exactly the same, but just a character's likeness and name has changed.

Now, if they replaced Mike Tyson with Mr. Glass (exaggeration to make a point), that would drive me over the edge. The entire dynamics of the game has changed. This is not what I bought. Moreover, if this had been the case, I would never had made the purchase in the first place.

If I'm in a restaurant enjoying a steak, and midway through my meal, the restaurant takes away my steak and replaces it with chicken; then, there is going to be a problem. It could be the best chicken in the world; however, I purchased the $16 steak, not the $10 chicken. I would not pay $16 for chicken. I find it hard to believe any one would find this behavior acceptable for a restaurant, but for some reason, a lot of people find it perfectly okay for a video game company to do this.

That said, if in the EULA (if it exists for the one person that read it by accident) states the video game company can nerf characters and not give refunds; then, customers really have no basis to request refunds from third parties. I may disagree with the practice and find it despicable, but if they tell you upfront this is their policy; then, you cannot come back later and argue against it. You can be unhappy (why wouldn't you be?), but it would be wrong to try and bypass MPQ and get a refund from a third party (in other words, taking actions that violate the terms of the EULA).

P.S. I did not spend all that time grinding for 4or (missing time with my family during the holiday season) for the current version. MPQ may have the legal authority, but I have no clue why a company would make such as change without compensating their customers/players for that change. It was not the fault of the players that the change was made. It is the responsibility of the developers to ensure that characters are correct when released. No one forces MPQ to release characters before MPQ is happy that the characters are correct. Therefore, it makes little sense to penalize players without compensation for that change.

An increased sell price is not fair compensation. When the 4or PVE was run, the rewards did not say 4or with these abilities for a little while. The rewards was for 4or with those abilities. Players were under the impression that MPQ had tested the character (afterall she had been tested by players during Anniversary week) and that the character as released was balanced. MPQ later stated that they had not properly calculated the value of charged tiles. Players had nothing to do with this miscalculation, but players were the ones that paid the price.

Same thing with X-Forcce. The character had been out for almost a year. Therefore, any one purchasing his covers were under the strong impression that the character was fine and had no reason to believe that the character would need to be changed. MPQ came out and stated he was above the 4* power level band. Again, it was MPQ's error that the character was above the seemingly arbitrary band and that the character had not been corrected within a reasonable amount of time since his buff. However, again, players are the ones that will be penalized for MPQ's error. An increased sales price is not fair compensation. It makes little sense that the compensation for a player that used X-Force for a year is the same as one that used him for a month, or even a week.

Furthermore, players that keep the character receive no compensation at all for the errors of others. MPQ may not have a responsibility to provide compensation; however, greater companies go beyond what they have to do, in order to provide exceptional customer service for their customers.

Edits because my spelling and grammar stink.

Unknown

MikeHock wrote:

"Here's the thing. Apple/Google/Visa/Mastercard/whomever have no way of/don't bother checking with a vendor to see if the refund request is valid."

Again, not the customers issue. Customer makes the request; what action the other party chooses to take is not the customers responsibility.

Here is how this works, from an inside perspective. You're upset at D3 for nerfing X-Force. Either you contacted D3 to complain and didn't like the response you got, or you skipped that whole step and went directly to Apple/Google/Visa/Mastercard/whomever. Believe me when I tell you that none of those companies is going to know what D3's refund policies or EULA terms are, and they are not going to look them up. You request a chargeback, they put through a chargeback, you get your money back. Now Apple/Google/Visa/Mastercard/whomever is out the money they've credited back to you. They will then contact D3's Fraud team directly with your credit card charge (time, date, amount, card #, and IP address), and advise that you contacted them and requested a chargeback. D3 will review the charge and inform Apple/Google/Visa/Mastercard/whomever that this is a fraudulent chargeback and will likely point to the EULA terms - which will clearly show that the chargeback was fraudulent. At this point, Apple/Google/Visa/Mastercard/whomever is likely to reinstate the charge on your credit card, D3 is likely going to ban/sandbox you for breaking the terms of the EULA, and you'll also quite likely end up with your credit history being ruined.

Unknown

Jamie Madrox wrote:

Referring to the text I bolded and underlined; both Apple and Google require you to first contact the vendor, as you said you instruct people to do, before requesting a refund from them. If you request a refund from them and say you contacted the vendor, when you did not, then you are lying, which is fraud. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

I understand, but I don't think anyone on this thread is defending when a person lies in an attempt to get a refund.

wirius

bonfire01 wrote:

hurcules wrote:

Not sure if fanning the fire or dousing it, but here is something relevant:

http://9to5mac.com/2014/12/29/app-store ... efunds-eu/

Not sure if this applies to US / Americas, but it is based on the premise of "cool down" period, which is required by law in EU.

Beyond the required 14 days, I believe it is handled case by case basis. Interestingly, at the end of the article:

That 14 day period is extended to a year if a business fails to properly inform consumers of the return period, according to the directive.

So if D3P/Demiurge has no specific guideline / processes on the T&Cs of IAP return policy, would that apply?

Probably not... by my understanding your purchase is with Apple/Google/Steam so the cooling off period applies to them and I would be shocked if they didn't have the relevant info somewhere to cover themselves. Even steam (the final boss battle of getting refunds) has the info on 14 day cooling off periods in place.

@Wirius.

EULAs (and contracts in general) can't modify statutory rights (in the EU at least).
You have failed to demonstrate the refund requests are false so how is that a big kahuna exactly? As long as ppl are accurate in their reasons then it is NOT false (and NOT fraud).
The transaction is with Apple/Google so the EULA which is ENTIRELY BETWEEN YOU AND D3PA by your own quotation has no relevance to the refund request to Apple/Google etc....
The bit about refunds presumably relates to attempting to get refunds from D3PA directly since D3's EULA isn't binding upon the mobile platforms.

The EULA is, as far as I can tell, mainly aimed at avoiding D3 having any liability to you directly. It is not binding upon mobile platform operators or your transaction with said mobile platform. That would be governed by your country's laws and the terms and conditions outlined by the mobile platform you gave your money to. Same incidentally with credit card companies and as I said above... a CC charge back (which I 100% do NOT suggest as a plan) would be an issue between you and your mobile platform NOT you and D3. It would be Apple/Google etc who took you to task over it.

And as for your final statement... if someone says to Apple/Google that they spent money with the intention of getting Xforce's covers, they got said covers then, without warning prior to their purchase those covers were changed such that they no longer want them OR would have bought them in that state how are they being dishonest? THAT is what the ppl I am aware of have stated (re: 4Thor actually, not XForce in the cases I know of, but same principal).

As long as ppl do not say anything provably, and objectively untrue to the ppl they request a refund from there is nothing to argue about. Implicit in fraud is deception. The fact you don't agree with their actions is irrelevant.

Fair enough for EU. I'm not up on their laws. Lets take some logic however, and work your argument that nerfing a character was changing the game enough to get a refund.

You see, in a competitive game, buffing one character is also logically nerfing other characters. One could then argue that buffing X-force way back nerfed other top tier characters as bought at the time. Lets say 3* Thor was the best at the time, and I bought him with HP with the full expectation he would continue to be the top. But now X-force's buffed nerfed Thor's tier heirarchy, and I no longer have what I paid for. Therefore if any character is buffed, one could ask full refunds on their now relatively nerfed characers.

When Starcraft was first released, it was unbalanced. However, over several iterations, starcraft was balanced to become what is considered the height of balanced gameplay in a competitive RTS today. YOUR argument means that after the first patch required to play online, I could expect a refund from the company because "zerg was nerfed". It means that Legue of Legends would have gone bankrupt in its first year as characters were buffed and nerfed. It means you remove any possibility of improvement in a game anywhere, as people can just demand refunds at the slightest change. Your idea would kill possible improvements to games, bug fixes, and upkeep of software.

Sorry, I see this as it is. A tantrum over a nerf, and a struggle to rationalize this tantrum. After all, we don't want to see our selves as irrational or in the wrong. But you're in the wrong. I believe the right thing, the heroic thing (We are in a marvel game after all) would be to admit that maybe its simple anger at the loss of power in a game. Maybe its anger at yourself that you spent tons of money on a product that you didn't know was by necessity going to be fluid, dynamic, and changeable. You did not buy into a product that ever promised to be stable. Its your mistake not realizing that, and not D3's fault that their product it what it is.

grunth13

Jamie Madrox wrote:

MikeHock wrote:

Jamie Madrox wrote:

I'm going to make this as simple as possible.

Money was spent for HP; HP was given. Asking for your money back from your credit card company is fraud because you received what you paid for in the condition that you expected it to arrive in. What you do with it from there is up to you. It's no secret, especially to anyone on these forums for any period of time or who play games with IAPs, that there is almost always no way to reverse IAPs.

Both Apple and Google require you to first contact the company that you purchased the game from to request a refund. Lots of people have not been doing this. In fact, the now removed thread about this was encouraging people to not bother contacting D# and just say you did. This is fraud.

In either of the above cases you're committing credit card fraud and should be happy that you're only being sandboxed and not being reported to authorities.

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on that one (in my best Lumberg voice)

Requesting a refund is not fraud.

You're right. Requesting a refund is not fraud. Requesting a refund and lying to get it is. D3 had a refund policy for changed characters in place. Sell it for the increased ISO/HP. It's not a full refund, and I don't think it's a particularly good one, but its the one they have and the one we have to live with.

The issue is that people are not contacting D3 and asking for refunds. They are going to Google and Apple and requesting refunds. Both Apple and Google require you to first try to work it out with D3. If you don't and tell then that you did, that's fraud.

I think a lot of the issue here is that people are equating the money they are spending with what they are using their HP for. Unfortunately you're not spending your money on X-Force covers or TGT covers. You're spending it on HP. HP you received as expected and then spent. That's where this argument ends. You spent money on HP. You got HP. What you chose to spend that HP on is your business.

Switchman wrote:

LOL claiming it's CC fraud. Fanboy much?

Lying to reverse a charge on a credit card is fraud.

Jamie, I did buy xf covers on March 28th and they announced the changes in within 10 days (might have been 11, 12, or 13). They still haven't mentioned the changes on the game so they let only some people know that things were changing. Do you know what that is called in the stock world---INS(IDER TRADING. Martha Stewart went to jail for it because she made like $750K or less when she was worth a BILLION. Anyways, back to the main point, I did go to D3 after Google asked me to contact them first and guess what they sent me--a pre-written form letter that they give to everyone that asks for the refund. So D3 doesn't even address the situation, they just send you a wonderful letter that I think everyone that contacts them gets...so how is that legit? They just tell us to wait and see and it will be so much better.

Unknown

Just want to add a little something to this discussion.

Google doesn't cancel in app purchases that are 2h or older in the vast majority of cases, unless the company doesn't offer some kind of refund themselves . That refund is not specified by Google.

So if you wanted to exploit this, the easiest way would be to make sure people could buy pretend money way, way in advance of the actual thing they're buying, and then offer a laughable refund. It could be, for instance, one tenth of the amount paid for it. Like say 3k hp even if you bought multiple covers. And if you wanted to get a cycle going, a good way to do it would be to make sure whatever players bought degraded over time.

So to those white knighting in favor of d3, be aware that they are well guarded against this sort of thing, at least on the Google side. Apple cares more about costumer satisfaction than about sticking to arbitrary exploitable rules, so they might get screwed there(since they clearly do not) .

Don't ever think d3 does anything out of the kindness of their hearts. Offering awful refunds is the best way to get away with telling costumers to go eat *** salad.

*Edited for language.

Unknown

wirius wrote:

Fair enough for EU. I'm not up on their laws. Lets take some logic however, and work your argument that nerfing a character was changing the game enough to get a refund.

You see, in a competitive game, buffing one character is also logically nerfing other characters. One could then argue that buffing X-force way back nerfed other top tier characters as bought at the time. Lets say 3* Thor was the best at the time, and I bought him with HP with the full expectation he would continue to be the top. But now X-force's buffed nerfed Thor's tier heirarchy, and I no longer have what I paid for. Therefore if any character is buffed, one could ask full refunds on their now relatively nerfed characers.

When Starcraft was first released, it was unbalanced. However, over several iterations, starcraft was balanced to become what is considered the height of balanced gameplay in a competitive RTS today. YOUR argument means that after the first patch required to play online, I could expect a refund from the company because "zerg was nerfed". It means that Legue of Legends would have gone bankrupt in its first year as characters were buffed and nerfed. It means you remove any possibility of improvement in a game anywhere, as people can just demand refunds at the slightest change. Your idea would kill possible improvements to games, bug fixes, and upkeep of software.

Sorry, I see this as it is. A tantrum over a nerf, and a struggle to rationalize this tantrum. After all, we don't want to see our selves as irrational or in the wrong. But you're in the wrong. I believe the right thing, the heroic thing (We are in a marvel game after all) would be to admit that maybe its simple anger at the loss of power in a game. Maybe its anger at yourself that you spent tons of money on a product that you didn't know was by necessity going to be fluid, dynamic, and changeable. You did not buy into a product that ever promised to be stable. Its your mistake not realizing that, and not D3's fault that their product it what it is.

I'm unsure if you are trolling me but fine, i'll reply.

Firstly, a person can request a refund for any reason they like (as long as what they say isn't untrue). The fact you wouldn't get a refund for claiming a buff to one hero made the thing you paid for less valuable by an abstract method doesn't make the request for the refund fraudulent or morally wrong. It makes it unsuccessful.

Regarding Starcraft. You bought the game, not the zerg race. It's a poor comparison. MY argument is completely different.

No need to apologise, you should feel free to see it any way you like. I don't feel the need to rationalize anything and you have completely failed to show me as "in the wrong" (incidentally I haven't refunded anything, or sought to refund anything at any point if that's the in the wrong you are claiming) you are merely stating an opinion as fact.

In fact, i'll say you are in the wrong for attempting to coerce people into giving up a basic consumer right based on your own attempts to rationalise why you play this game and rationalise what YOU have spent on the game by refuting ANYTHING that suggests it's not amazing and ANYTHING that implies your purchases were foolish. See how much fun it is to go for baseless internet psychoanalysis????

TaoSpoons

CoolB76 wrote:

Talk about dramatic. And here I was thinking people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Depends on whether the proceedings are civil or criminal. If criminal, then yes. If civil, then no.

hurcules wrote:

Not sure if fanning the fire or dousing it, but here is something relevant:

http://9to5mac.com/2014/12/29/app-store ... efunds-eu/

Not sure if this applies to US / Americas, but it is based on the premise of "cool down" period, which is required by law in EU.

Beyond the required 14 days, I believe it is handled case by case basis. Interestingly, at the end of the article:

That 14 day period is extended to a year if a business fails to properly inform consumers of the return period, according to the directive.

So if D3P/Demiurge has no specific guideline / processes on the T&Cs of IAP return policy, would that apply?

American law doesn't have anything comparable (at least, not that I'm aware of). How contracts/etc designed to accommodate American law intermingle with people protected under EU law is murky to the point where I wouldn't want to speak to it.

grunth13 wrote:

Jamie, I did buy xf covers on March 28th and they announced the changes in within 10 days (might have been 11, 12, or 13). They still haven't mentioned the changes on the game so they let only some people know that things were changing. Do you know what that is called in the stock world---INS(IDER TRADING. Martha Stewart went to jail for it because she made like $750K or less when she was worth a BILLION.

You've oversimplified your definition. Insider trading is substantially different than anything that has occurred here.

grunth13

TaoSpoons wrote:

CoolB76 wrote:

Talk about dramatic. And here I was thinking people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Depends on whether the proceedings are civil or criminal. If criminal, then yes. If civil, then no.

hurcules wrote:

Not sure if fanning the fire or dousing it, but here is something relevant:

http://9to5mac.com/2014/12/29/app-store ... efunds-eu/

Not sure if this applies to US / Americas, but it is based on the premise of "cool down" period, which is required by law in EU.

Beyond the required 14 days, I believe it is handled case by case basis. Interestingly, at the end of the article:

That 14 day period is extended to a year if a business fails to properly inform consumers of the return period, according to the directive.

So if D3P/Demiurge has no specific guideline / processes on the T&Cs of IAP return policy, would that apply?

American law doesn't have anything comparable (at least, not that I'm aware of). How contracts/etc designed to accommodate American law intermingle with people protected under EU law is murky to the point where I wouldn't want to speak to it.

grunth13 wrote:

Jamie, I did buy xf covers on March 28th and they announced the changes in within 10 days (might have been 11, 12, or 13). They still haven't mentioned the changes on the game so they let only some people know that things were changing. Do you know what that is called in the stock world---INS(IDER TRADING. Martha Stewart went to jail for it because she made like $750K or less when she was worth a BILLION.

You've oversimplified your definition. Insider trading is substantially different than anything that has occurred here.

At this point, everyone's argument has become an oversimplified definition of fraud or not. As of yet, not one person who is versed in contract law has made their opinion known, and even if they did, it still doesn't mean much because if you ask the 2 lawyers about the same thing, you will get 2 different versions (just like here). Hell, even courts decisions are overturned by higher courts, who then get their decision overturned by the Supreme Court. So please, don't tell me my argument is false or not, because no one truly knows. The facts are that I bought XF covers and within 2 weeks, the nerfs were announced. The D3 company did not announce those same changes to the mass majority of their player base. The only reply from D3 so far when asking for a refund is a form letter saying essentially wait and see. If you say that those players should have just been to the forum to get that info, D3 doesn't own the forum. It is not their official website. It is not up to the players to be here everyday hoping to get the next nugget of wisdom from D3 on how this game should be played. It is up to the company to give all the info to all the players at the same time.

ronin_san

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

If I'm in a restaurant enjoying a steak, and midway through my meal, the restaurant takes away my steak and replaces it with chicken; then, it could be the best chicken in the world. However, I purchased the $16 steak, not the $10 chicken. I would not pay $16 for chicken. I find it hard to believe any one would find this behavior acceptable for a restaurant, but for some reason, a lot of people find it perfectly okay for a video game company to do this.

That said, if in the EULA (if it exists for the one person that read it by accident) states the video game company can nerf characters and not give refunds; then, customers really have no basis to request refunds from third parties. I may disagree with the practice and find it despicable, but if they tell you upfront this is their policy; then, you cannot come back later and argue against it. You can be unhappy

i liked this analogy. It's kind of like a groupon. I think it boils down to: you played the game because you agreed to waive right to true refunds, if ever money is spent. You retain no ownership of the characters, no matter the money spent.

This game could shut down next Friday. Those people who JUST spent money may have an arguable case for refund, timing and whatnot. But it isn't a week. It has been mooooooonths.

but there are plenty of other things on the menu. And it may be that something, eventually, may be stronger than xfw. But for now, his initial and second iterations are off the menu.

Just remember that your groupon is still valid.

Unknown

got my 3d glasses on and popcorn in hand. this has been quite entertaining. so much self-righteous indignation and delusional possession of the absolute truth in here! i say this and all the rest below light-heartedly cause only those on a super high horse can really take these things very seriously.

for those arguing on the side of fraud, dutiful children of the empire ya'll must be . arguing on the side of the hegemonic powers that be? on the side of the law? oh holy gatekeepers of the 'truth' you're allegiance to your own self-constructed sense of justice has really rendered you blind. after all, isn't justice blind? indeed, blind to those it oppresses of course. all i'm reading from those claiming 'fraud!' is moral relativism at its finest. and hermeneutical bigotry on top of that. its really not difficult to tease out the paradoxical and/or hypocritical stances that are taken once conversation devolves into 'i'm right', no 'i'm right'. one doesnt have to look much further than government to understand the inherently contradictory relation between justice and governance. a law is only as efficacious as the person interpreting it. laws are no ends in themselves, they are no litmus test of right or wrong, they are merely instrumental means by which one claims some arbitrary perception of value in that given moment. and because interpretations are always changing, the meaning of laws are perpetually subject to transformations.

my criticism here is only directed at those arguing that 'asking for refunds' is 'fraud'. recourse to legal rhetoric is fine, but when this is coupled with some misguided sense of absolute justice and divining punishment, well...fundamentalism here we come! we've completely flown past the problems with advanced capitalism and are now squarely in the realm of medieval violence. now whether or not the underlying logic between two are reaaaally any different, well that's another can of worms. all ya'll are doing are justifying either 1. your own relative sense of 'right and wrong' or 2. your dutiful indoctrination into a very western system of values. and the irony of all this is well...this country (the states) is a nation built by cowboys, hustlers and thieves. the movie 'american hustle' is one fine example of the grind everyday people go through to survive...in spite of the system of law and economics that ykno...aids and abets the 1% while **** on the rest of society. play by the rules? yea sure, says the keeper of the rules. but that's the sad thing, might indeed makes right. just ask the native americans.

anyways, its a violent violent cycle we're all caught in. cheats exist because an unfair system is the norm. why are systems unfair? because they're aimed at churning a profit, and profit entails the exploitation of customers' desires. and all this runs like a well oiled machine until the system oversteps...or when D3 develops an over-inflated sense of power, when the 'balance' between system and society becomes upset, when 'innocent', and admittedly mutual, exploitation (i.e. super high costs of roster spots iso scarcity, whathaveyou) devolves into a totalitarian state of affairs where 'balance' equates to pillaging society/customer base of its well earned resources. (i've critiqued this misguided notion of 'balance' here- viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26893&start=40#p327998) while they trumpet the mantra of 'balance balance balance' there could not be anything further from the notion of balance between the devs and its customer base. and so, you have the rise of phenomena such as this where players start asking for refunds and feel justified because ITS BECOME TOO MUCH. everyone, everything has a breaking point. D3 doesn't understand this. you simply cant keep coming out with awesome products and continually recalling them and returning them to their owners in a lesser state than before. its like if each time you bought a new iphone, a few months later, apple takes back your phone just to return one with say...no battery. which isnt too far from the truth anyways lol. you still love iphones, but now you're upset and you become moreso as this whole process becomes a trend. eventually you reach a breaking point at which time you feel compelled to ACT. what it all comes down to is the concept of accountability and an utter lack of it when it comes to D3.

those arguing on the side of fraud, i'm sorry...you're rhetoric is on the side of totalitarian logic. its the idea of no over-sight and only self-policing. the fact that a phenomenon such as asking for refunds exists is precisely a form of accountability, without which there really wouldnt be any accountability in the strong sense. on an underlying level, the way these relations or balance of relations between devs and players are supposed to go is that players keep the devs accountable because otherwise they'd just run wild drunk on power. sure, the forums are a place for us to voice our concerns and keep them accountable, but CLEARLY the devs are blind and deaf to many of the players' concerns on these forums. AND SO WHAT IS LEFT when players feel utterly helpless, when they can do nothing but watch as D3 continually nerfs all the characters we spend so much time and money into winning? you get something like this where we start demanding refunds. ya'll can argue til the cows come home over whether or not it indeed is 'fraud' or who's right and who's wrong, etcetcetc...but all this is doing is deflecting from the main issue. it is not whether or not asking for refunds is fraud. it is that people are so adamant about demanding refunds at all. the fact that this phenomenon exists speaks volumes about the state of this game. dont get me wrong, we all have masters, we all answer to someone, to some authority. but to defend a master that continually abuses us? lol...smh. i mean, a reaction against such tyrannical authority is what founded this country. i mean...you DO know you're playing a game with superheroes that fight against these manifestations of 'evil' right? unless you're like the devs...really into moonstone and the rest of the dark avengers. which would make perfect sense.

IlDuderino

I can see the headlines now

Day 1 "Apple/Google and game publisher launch global class actions to recover multiple $5 fraudulent refunds for an online phone game"
Day 183 "Apple/Google and game publisher incur massive legal costs, recover tiny proportion of money claimed and suffer good will backlash as a result of class action to recover $5 purchases for an online phone game. Persons claiming $5 refunds are sent to prison for fraud. Average sentence 2 years"

dkffiv

wirius wrote:

3. If there is a charge associated with the Game, you agree to pay that charge. You understand that all purchases and charges made by you are final. You are not entitled to any refund or return for products sold for any reason. Any election to honor a refund or return shall be made at our sole discretion.

4. We can manage, regulate, control, modify or eliminate virtual currency and/or virtual goods, including the price thereof, at our discretion, and will have no liability to you or any third party for any of such actions.

EULA be damned if I paid for virtual currency and they decided to eliminate all of it out of the blue, that's outright fraud. If you paid $100 for HP and the next day it was removed from your account, would you argue that's fine? You apparently agreed to the EULA so its in the right to do whatever they want to your account.

EULA doesn't fully protect their ****, I believe Sony had some type of user-assumes-risk on using credit cards in their system but still got sued due to the breach. EULA gives them the right to close down your account at their discretion but not to protect them against legal recourse.

All I can say is the devs are stupid and brought this on themselves. They could've nerfed Xforce gradually over the course of 4 months and there would've been grumbling but probably not outright calls for a refund. Beginning of every month drop his damage by 10% and claim they're still working on balancing him. Players would gradually shift to new characters when they started to outpace him but players without any other options could still get by. Same thing with other characters that need buffs (like Psylocke), gradually raise their power by 10% and see how they fair if you don't want to invest time into completely revamping them like the CMags treatment. Takes seconds to change a few numbers in the database and you keep the changes small enough that they shouldn't have any game-breaking consequences.