what people getting real refunds are saying...

dkffiv

bonfire01 wrote:

Ahh analogy wars...

The whole ticket for a themepark analogy makes no sense. In gaming terms your analogy is more like someone buying a game (the ticket) then a unit was removed/nerfed from the game's online play for being imbalanced (the missing ride) and them asking for a refund.

Ticket was representing HP. You used real money to get a ticket which can be used on a variety of things but the thing you really wanted to use it on is no longer available. People who just entered the Magic Kingdom as the lights went out would be entitled to a full refund in real life and those that were already in there for several hours might not be, but it doesn't appear there's a situation in place to make determinations like that. At the very least I would assume Disney would pro-rate you on the remaining time that you could've spent in the park and give you a partial refund if you left right after. Arguments are being made here that if you just entered and the park shut down you aren't justified in complaining because you can go walk over to Epcot and have a less fun experience there.

simonsez

dkffiv wrote:

Ticket was representing HP. You used real money to get a ticket which can be used on a variety of things but the thing you really wanted to use it on is no longer available.

But that's really not what's happening here. It's not an unavailability of the thing you wanted to use it on; it's actually buying the thing, and then having it replaced by something vastly inferior. It's like if you went to Disneyworld, and shelled out extra to do the character lunch with Elsa because you're daughter is obsessed with Frozen, but 10 minutes into the lunch, they tell you Elsa had a prior commitment, so instead they give you Flo from the Progressive Insurance commercials.

Wonko33

I should put an EULA by my doorbell, saying you relinquish your right to prosecute me or retaliate if I punch you in the face.

By knocking or ringing the bell you acknowledge that you have read and agreed to the terms of the EULA.

Would do wonders for door to door salesmen and all the different religion recruiters. I'm sure the police would understand that the state laws don't take precedence to my clearly posted terms of use.

Unknown

Wonko33 wrote:

I should put an EULA by my doorbell, saying you relinquish your right to prosecute me or retaliate if I punch you in the face.

By knocking or ringing the bell you acknowledge that you have read and agreed to the terms of the EULA.

Would do wonders for door to door salesmen and all the different religion recruiters. I'm sure the police would understand that the state laws don't take precedence to my clearly posted terms of use.

Everyone who's playing this game still rang that doorbell so...

Arondite

simonsez wrote:

dkffiv wrote:

Ticket was representing HP. You used real money to get a ticket which can be used on a variety of things but the thing you really wanted to use it on is no longer available.

But that's really not what's happening here. It's not an unavailability of the thing you wanted to use it on; it's actually buying the thing, and then having it replaced by something vastly inferior. It's like if you went to Disneyworld, and shelled out extra to do the character lunch with Elsa because you're daughter is obsessed with Frozen, but 10 minutes into the lunch, they tell you Elsa had a prior commitment, so instead they give you Flo from the Progressive Insurance commercials.

Wait XForce got buffed?

Wonko33

onimus wrote:

Wonko33 wrote:

I should put an EULA by my doorbell, saying you relinquish your right to prosecute me or retaliate if I punch you in the face.

By knocking or ringing the bell you acknowledge that you have read and agreed to the terms of the EULA.

Would do wonders for door to door salesmen and all the different religion recruiters. I'm sure the police would understand that the state laws don't take precedence to my clearly posted terms of use.

Everyone who's playing this game still rang that doorbell so...

.... The law still says I cant puch them in the face. Is that what you ment?

Arondite

onimus wrote:

Wonko33 wrote:

I should put an EULA by my doorbell, saying you relinquish your right to prosecute me or retaliate if I punch you in the face.

By knocking or ringing the bell you acknowledge that you have read and agreed to the terms of the EULA.

Would do wonders for door to door salesmen and all the different religion recruiters. I'm sure the police would understand that the state laws don't take precedence to my clearly posted terms of use.

Everyone who's playing this game still rang that doorbell so...

Yeah, and the proprietor still faces legal action if he punches any/all of the ringers. Lmao don't be stupid.

Unknown

Wonko33 wrote:

onimus wrote:

Wonko33 wrote:

I should put an EULA by my doorbell, saying you relinquish your right to prosecute me or retaliate if I punch you in the face.

By knocking or ringing the bell you acknowledge that you have read and agreed to the terms of the EULA.

Would do wonders for door to door salesmen and all the different religion recruiters. I'm sure the police would understand that the state laws don't take precedence to my clearly posted terms of use.

Everyone who's playing this game still rang that doorbell so...

.... The law still says I cant puch them in the face. Is that what you ment?

No.

What I meant was, the EULA says they can punch you in the face if you ring the doorbell.

So when they punch you in the face, don't act all surprised. You rang the doorbell.

We don't need to get into the legal complications of whether an EULA is 'just' or not.

Just expect what people are telling you will happen...to happen.

Unknown

onimus wrote:

Wonko33 wrote:

onimus wrote:

Wonko33 wrote:

I should put an EULA by my doorbell, saying you relinquish your right to prosecute me or retaliate if I punch you in the face.

By knocking or ringing the bell you acknowledge that you have read and agreed to the terms of the EULA.

Would do wonders for door to door salesmen and all the different religion recruiters. I'm sure the police would understand that the state laws don't take precedence to my clearly posted terms of use.

Everyone who's playing this game still rang that doorbell so...

.... The law still says I cant puch them in the face. Is that what you ment?

No.

What I meant was, the EULA says they can punch you in the face if you ring the doorbell.

So when they punch you in the face, don't act all surprised. You rang the doorbell.

We don't need to get into the legal complications of whether an EULA is 'just' or not.

Just expect what people are telling you will happen...to happen.

To be fair pretty much ALL EULAs will say you have no rights of any kind, we can do whatever we like, you don't own anything etc etc. It's done as a way to make sure you don't give consumers anything BEYOND their statutory rights because any time you may accidentally imply something by communication or by an action or a pattern of actions you can go back to the EULA and say you already outlined everyone's rights. It means something incredibly blatant has to be done by a company in order for it to be taken as reasonably altering the contract between company and customer and conferring additional rights to the customer. (That's also why refunds are always a one time gesture of goodwill. Otherwise the action would overrule the EULA, alter the contract between the 2 parties and give the customer recourse to denand the same treatment with respect to refunds for future transactions.... may vary by country though).

So from that standpoint EVERY EULA implies terrible things could happen to you yet most companies don't try said terrible things (maybe partly because a EULA can't alter statutory rights but I imagine mainly cause it doesn't benefit you to anger your customers and if you do one of those things your EULA says the customer can't take you to court over once (like literally altering your game to the point of being unrecognisable just because the EULA says you can etc etc), those customers won't come back again for your next game).

The long and the short of it is I don't think ppl should be told they had things coming and should have expected them because of the EULA. All the EULAs for all my games say this kind of thing and my experience is they don't punch me in the face .

Unknown

"If you get to the end of this sentence, you just accepted every word in the EULA"

fmftint

I know what I'm saying. My season rank has jumped ~20 places overnight. I can only conclude this is a result of charge backs getting sandboxed
Went from mid 90s to low 70s

GothicKratos

bonfire01 wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

This is assuming, of course, they do indeed get banned, yeah, that in a manner of speaking is "even", but you're even because they banned you for fraud.

Do you still not understand the concept of fraud?

Implicit in fraud is DECEPTION. People have to lie or misrepresent.

Did you not see that thread? There was plenty of encouragement to literally lie. There was literally a post that said "I heard that Google wasn't giving refunds because it's an in-app purchase" and several other people just replied 'oh no, you just have word it right'. Those little 'white lies' are still lies.

If you were not within their specified time period to receive a discount, you were not mislead during your purchase of covers. You are a victim of game balancing, but as pointed out extensively, that is part of the ebb and flow of any game - especially an online game and even more so a competitive one. There was no bait and switch. So anyone claiming this was lying.

Now, there is plenty of validity for the people whom purchased him during the sale going on right now. That's fine. It's not necessarily a "bait and switch" to me, but it's very much obviously in the territory of not getting what you paid for.

The fact of the matter is, however, is that the vast majority of players here complaining covered him ages ago and suffered no loses because they've earned off of his back in multiplicands of whatever they may have invested in him.

All that being said, I'm just going to walk away and agree to disagree. Moral ambiguity is probably one of the dumbest things to argue over, because it will always be a circular argument (since morality is an opinion, and is thus not quantifiable or definably in any true guidelines).

_RiO_

GothicKratos wrote:

Now, there is plenty of validity for the people whom purchased him during the sale going on right now. That's fine. It's not necessarily a "bait and switch" to me, but it's very much obviously in the territory of not getting what you paid for.

The fact of the matter is, however, is that the vast majority of players here complaining covered him ages ago and suffered no loses because they've earned off of his back in multiplicands of whatever they may have invested in him.

^ QFT.

Even in the event that you would be legally entitled to a refund, prolonged use of an altered character would mean you'd only be entitled to a partial refund and not a full refund. That's more or less what the buy-back gives you, but I'd argue that it's far too stingy currently. You should be able to expect to recoup approx. ~30% of your HP costs at the least. The real problem there is D3P/Demiurge is apparantly unable to discern exactly which character covers you bought via HP and which you earned through play.

People that recently bought an altered character and get the rug pulled out from under them... well, I wouldn't necessarily call it a bait and switch this time. The case of the Thoress nerf was a lot closer to a bait and switch: there was no proper public, easily discovered announcement of the incoming change; the timing with the HP sale was awfully 'convenient'; etc. However, I guess you could still call it a type of non-conformity: buying X, but getting severly weakened Y.

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

Now, there is plenty of validity for the people whom purchased him during the sale going on right now. That's fine. It's not necessarily a "bait and switch" to me, but it's very much obviously in the territory of not getting what you paid for.

The fact of the matter is, however, is that the vast majority of players here complaining covered him ages ago and suffered no loses because they've earned off of his back in multiplicands of whatever they may have invested in him.

^ QFT.

Even in the event that you would be legally entitled to a refund, prolonged use of an altered character would mean you'd only be entitled to a partial refund and not a full refund. That's more or less what the buy-back gives you, but I'd argue that it's far too stingy currently. You should be able to expect to recoup approx. ~30% of your HP costs at the least. The real problem there is D3P/Demiurge is apparantly unable to discern exactly which character covers you bought via HP and which you earned through play.

People that recently bought an altered character and get the rug pulled out from under them... well, I wouldn't necessarily call it a bait and switch this time. The case of the Thoress nerf was a lot closer to a bait and switch: there was no proper public, easily discovered announcement of the incoming change; the timing with the HP sale was awfully 'convenient'; etc. However, I guess you could still call it a type of non-conformity: buying X, but getting severly weakened Y.

Why?

There is no law anywhere that states someone can sell you something then alter it after a specific period without your consent so this can't be a legal justification... so an ethical one? So how long is prolonged use? Is it after x months the value drops or is it linear? On a curve?

IMO it's a nonsensical distinction that is only being made because of the way gamers have been conditioned. Half the reason ppl are constantly making analogies to physical products is because other ppl accept significantly worse consumer rights on digital products as "the norm" and "absolutely fine" or make justifications about having got use out of something so it's fine... I disagree with EVERY one of those concepts.

Physical products might lose value over time (depreciate) like cars, or might suffer wear and tear which is your own fault or might become relatively less valuable because a new model comes out but you NEVER EVER have a situation where someone comes and intentionally negatively alters the actual thing you bought and you accept it. I see no reason to apply bizarrely different standards to digital goods.

evil panda

Wait, so the collective forum denizens have now graduated from getting slapped in the face, to getting punched in the face? That's progress!

And I would be thrilled if I showed up to dinner with Elsa and got Flo instead. Better dinner conversation.

_RiO_

bonfire01 wrote:

Physical products might lose value over time (depreciate) like cars, or might suffer wear and tear which is your own fault or might become relatively less valuable because a new model comes out but you NEVER EVER have a situation where someone comes and intentionally negatively alters the actual thing you bought and you accept it. I see no reason to apply bizarrely different standards to digital goods.

It's not wear or loss of intrinsic value over time. It's actually the definiotion of 'value' for what was purchased in the first place: is the value of the character in the character itself, or in the utility you've had of winning matches with that character?
If the former, then you have no basis for argument as the actual adjustments to the skills do not alter your ability to use the character casually or to have it their as a collectible trophy in your inventory. If the latter, then you have profitted substantially of the value already, which in most cases would mean D3P/Demiurge has only partially failed to live up to performance of the contract of sale and you are only elligible for a partial refund on the sum you've spent.

(Afaik, the articles describing those type of constructs are still there in EU directives and member state implementations thereof...)

Unknown

Screw the EULA an whatever legalities. I dont even know how much I've spent on this game so far, but I'm whats reffered to as a wallet warrior. Well D3, this whale is headed for bluer seas.
When setting policies to cover your butt only, consider the phone game market as a whole. How many competitors you have; How many new games are coming out daily; What your growth projections are an what the retention rate you need to make it happen; the cost of losing consumer confidence an all the negative reviews that come with it.
Lets be fair an set policies that cover all our butts. In the 1st 60 days make whatever nerfs u deam necessary. IMO thats give you plenty evaluation an tweeking time, and if not go 90, but there has has to be a limit. After that, the cover is what it is. Its a part of the game an you can make competitive adjustments with new covers or increasing powers of old ones. Then your customers can invest in confidence.
This isnt about Prof X, this is about Wolverine friggin X Factor! The franchise cover, the cover most everyone covets and has worked on the most for the longest time. That's the cover that gives me a chance vs lvl 340 2*s like aries in pve or the one i revive over an over in Pvp.
I just dont think whatever benefit you guys think you may get out of this nerf is worth upsetting the majority of your revenue stream. I just dont understand the logic.

slidecage

i really hope they ban everyone who does chargebacks.

O i paid xxxx to get my X force max out 6 months back and now they nerfed him, so i want all of my cash back.


the company should say okay we will give you all of the cash but, But then again we will figure how much that Max X force allowed you to win and you are requred to pay back all of the winnings . These people want to keep everything their max people got them and their cash back LOL



i dont see a problem with giving people their cash back if they give everything they won back, if they Dont have it take it out of how much they would get back

im shocked any company is giving refunds, i remember back on CAFE WORLD i mis click a button taking Cash dollars out of my account the company said Too bad it helped you get a dish cooked faster (even though i did not need it) and NO REFUND. So i go i call up my credit card company, Company goes did you get any benfit out of the purchase and when you go it speeded up something even though i did not need it, Company goes too bad you got something out of it

NO REFUND

game is Belly up now cause they screwed over too many people so its a moot pt. ALso noone got any of their cash back when the company closed up.

Arctic_One

I'm not getting involved on the morality of getting refunds for any product. I do however know that in-game currency is considered legal tender in many countries. There is a game called Second Life where there they use a currency called Lindens (much like Hero Points) in which you can use for in-game purchases. This is considered a currency exchange.

Arondite

Arctic_One wrote:

I'm not getting involved on the morality of getting refunds for any product. I do however know that in-game currency is considered legal tender in many countries. There is a game called Second Life where there they use a currency called Lindens (much like Hero Points) in which you can use for in-game purchases. This is considered a currency exchange.

Hero points falls way short of that for two reasons -

It doesn't meet the criteria for digital currency (in the us) since there's no peer to peer purchase/marketplace and it is non-transferable ; even if it met the criteria for currency, the purchase falls short of currency exchange as for CE, there must be an established rate for exchange in both ways. Since hero points can't be exchanged for cash, the purchase of hp is not currency exchange.