Customer Feedback + The Masses

Unknown

Verno5x wrote:

I'm actually enjoying this thread even though I came in expecting another thread just full of complaints. This thread is just a small handful of people who have the opinion that nerfs should never happen (which anyone who has ever played an online game knows is a crazy opinion to have) and a lot of people having a reasonable discussion. As someone with a maxed out Rags, Thor, and Wolverine all 3 of those nerfs were very much needed. The Ragnarok nerf was a bit heavy handed in my opinion but Thor and Wolverine were handled well. They both had some powers get worse while others get better and are now options rather than required for most events. I'm hopeful that further nerfs and buffs are given the same amount of care and attention that the devs gave Thor and Wolverine rather than the heavy handed nerf of Ragnarok.

Hey Verno5x, you have valid points here. Perhaps nerfs are needed.

I just want them to offer an equivalent credit for those that did level up those characters instead of half credit. Covers and ISO take some time to get, so I feel the least they can do is provide an equivalent exchange. Those people still have to grind to get all the covers again even if they wanted to rebuild the characters.

As someone that has put money into this game, it just gives me little confidence in putting more money in when you know what you pay for can be downgraded at any moment. Nerfing would be fine if everyone had the same base. Or paid the same amount for the game, and all pieces are equal. But in this case they give you the ability to channel your funds into upgrading a character. When those funds involve real money that is when I have an issue with Nerfing if full credit is not refunded. And credit can be in the form of ISO or coin equivalent.

Unknown

ebodibo wrote:

Jester Day wrote:

For those commenting that "I did not get what I expected, thus I have been tricked", you might want to reassess if your expectations might not have been slightly out of line as well.

My view is that each game should take between two and five minutes of match 3 puzzling. The game currently is quite close to that. I do not believe in "I win buttons".

Feeding a power spiral is bad. There is a reason that collectible card games tries to keep the powerspiral from getting out of control, and why the best of them have it under control for long times. Nerfs are very valid. Balancing a game for the desired outcome is valid. Buffing is valid, until you feed the power spiral.

The only thing I do not see valid in this game is banning. Let's not go there.

If they nerf, fine, I'm saying offer an equivalent refund. Not 50%. Every other service or product industry does this. My "expectation" is to be able to use what I paid for. And if that changes, I want to be able to get a refund or equivalent credit. Is that not fair?

This^^^^^ it's called ethics. Apparently they missed this course in college.

Unknown

ebodibo wrote:

Jester Day wrote:

If they nerf, fine, I'm saying offer an equivalent refund. Not 50%. Every other service or product industry does this.

No. Every other service and product out there does at all. Especially not the gaming industry. It is simply a falsehood to say so.

My "expectation" is to be able to use what I paid for. And if that changes, I want to be able to get a refund or equivalent credit. Is that not fair?

If your expectation was to be allowed heroes that trivialised the game, I would say that your expectations were unfounded. So no, it actually isn't all that fair. The only time you can expect a full refund is if you return the product, most of the times unused (though sometimes allowances are made). Here, you expect to get back what you spent, and be allowed to spend it again, despite still having access to the product.

Can it be handled better? Yes. But what you suggest has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with wishing to hold on to an edge that should not be there.

Unknown

Jester Day wrote:

ebodibo wrote:

Jester Day wrote:

If they nerf, fine, I'm saying offer an equivalent refund. Not 50%. Every other service or product industry does this.

No. Every other service and product out there does at all. Especially not the gaming industry. It is simply a falsehood to say so.

My "expectation" is to be able to use what I paid for. And if that changes, I want to be able to get a refund or equivalent credit. Is that not fair?

If your expectation was to be allowed heroes that trivialised the game, I would say that your expectations were unfounded. So no, it actually isn't all that fair. The only time you can expect a full refund is if you return the product, most of the times unused (though sometimes allowances are made). Here, you expect to get back what you spent, and be allowed to spend it again, despite still having access to the product.

Can it be handled better? Yes. But what you suggest has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with wishing to hold on to an edge that should not be there.

Good point, perhaps I should clarify, let me sell off / return the "modified" product for equivalent credit. So that it can be respec'ed or used elsewhere.

As for product refunds, I was generalizing, but to be specific the most successful companies do this, Amazon, Zappos, Target, Macy's, Nordstrom, Von Maur and REI are all examples where you can return something if you are not satisfied with the product, even if used.

I just don't see why as consumers we should just accept whatever is done to us.

Unknown

ebodibo wrote:

Jester Day wrote:

ebodibo wrote:

Jester Day wrote:

If they nerf, fine, I'm saying offer an equivalent refund. Not 50%. Every other service or product industry does this.

No. Every other service and product out there does at all. Especially not the gaming industry. It is simply a falsehood to say so.

My "expectation" is to be able to use what I paid for. And if that changes, I want to be able to get a refund or equivalent credit. Is that not fair?

If your expectation was to be allowed heroes that trivialised the game, I would say that your expectations were unfounded. So no, it actually isn't all that fair. The only time you can expect a full refund is if you return the product, most of the times unused (though sometimes allowances are made). Here, you expect to get back what you spent, and be allowed to spend it again, despite still having access to the product.

Can it be handled better? Yes. But what you suggest has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with wishing to hold on to an edge that should not be there.

Good point, perhaps I should clarify, let me sell off / return the "modified" product for equivalent credit. So that it can be respec'ed or used elsewhere.

As for product refunds, I was generalizing, but to be specific the most successful companies do this, Amazon, Zappos, Target, Macy's, Nordstrom, Von Maur and REI are all examples where you can return something if you are not satisfied with the product, even if used.

I just don't see why as consumers we should just accept whatever is done to us.

Because the school systems in America have turned most Americans into docile sheep.

Unknown

ebodibo wrote:

Jester Day wrote:

ebodibo wrote:

Jester Day wrote:

If they nerf, fine, I'm saying offer an equivalent refund. Not 50%. Every other service or product industry does this.

No. Every other service and product out there does at all. Especially not the gaming industry. It is simply a falsehood to say so.

My "expectation" is to be able to use what I paid for. And if that changes, I want to be able to get a refund or equivalent credit. Is that not fair?

If your expectation was to be allowed heroes that trivialised the game, I would say that your expectations were unfounded. So no, it actually isn't all that fair. The only time you can expect a full refund is if you return the product, most of the times unused (though sometimes allowances are made). Here, you expect to get back what you spent, and be allowed to spend it again, despite still having access to the product.

Can it be handled better? Yes. But what you suggest has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with wishing to hold on to an edge that should not be there.

Good point, perhaps I should clarify, let me sell off / return the "modified" product for equivalent credit. So that it can be respec'ed or used elsewhere.

As for product refunds, I was generalizing, but to be specific the most successful companies do this, Amazon, Zappos, Target, Macy's, Nordstrom, Von Maur and REI are all examples where you can return something if you are not satisfied with the product, even if used.

I just don't see why as consumers we should just accept whatever is done to us.

There are millions of reasons why they don't give a full refund with every change. Here's a couple:

- There's overall industry practice. You mention a bunch of competing retail outlets that give full refunds, but I don't see a lot of video games on there. WoW isn't giving you back your subscription fees or handing out Tier gear tokens just because they nerfed a rogue.

- You've gotten what you paid for. You paid for Thor, and you have Thor. The mechanics will change over time - that's a widely accepted fact in any online game - but you still have the "product" you paid for. You guys keep coming up with analogies tied to physical products, but it's closer to food at a restaurant. You buy the salmon, but you don't buy the recipe. The restaurant is free to change the ingredients any time they like, and if they do, you don't get to ask for a refund on every salmon dish you've ever had from that place.

- You don't own the stuff you buy in a game. It's not yours. You don't get to as play Wolverine in Candy Crush, you don't get to take him to school for show and tell. You get to use their property for a little while within their game. But they can do whatever they want with their stuff.



-

Unknown

RockMonster wrote:

There are millions of reasons why they don't give a full refund with every change. Here's a couple:

- There's overall industry practice. You mention a bunch of competing retail outlets that give full refunds, but I don't see a lot of video games on there. WoW isn't giving you back your subscription fees or handing out Tier gear tokens just because they nerfed a rogue.

- You've gotten what you paid for. You paid for Thor, and you have Thor. The mechanics will change over time - that's a widely accepted fact in any online game - but you still have the "product" you paid for. You guys keep coming up with analogies tied to physical products, but it's closer to food at a restaurant. You buy the salmon, but you don't buy the recipe. The restaurant is free to change the ingredients any time they like, and if they do, you don't get to ask for a refund on every salmon dish you've ever had from that place.

- You don't own the stuff you buy in a game. It's not yours. You don't get to as play Wolverine in Candy Crush, you don't get to take him to school for show and tell. You get to use their property for a little while within their game. But they can do whatever they want with their stuff.



-

What a load of Bunk. You should accept your screwing sir all the industry gets a way with it. Wow you are definitely an example of my last statement.

Unknown

RockMonster wrote:

There are millions of reasons why they don't give a full refund with every change. Here's a couple:

- There's overall industry practice. You mention a bunch of competing retail outlets that give full refunds, but I don't see a lot of video games on there. WoW isn't giving you back your subscription fees or handing out Tier gear tokens just because they nerfed a rogue.

- You've gotten what you paid for. You paid for Thor, and you have Thor. The mechanics will change over time - that's a widely accepted fact in any online game - but you still have the "product" you paid for. You guys keep coming up with analogies tied to physical products, but it's closer to food at a restaurant. You buy the salmon, but you don't buy the recipe. The restaurant is free to change the ingredients any time they like, and if they do, you don't get to ask for a refund on every salmon dish you've ever had from that place.

- You don't own the stuff you buy in a game. It's not yours. You don't get to as play Wolverine in Candy Crush, you don't get to take him to school for show and tell. You get to use their property for a little while within their game. But they can do whatever they want with their stuff.

Your analogy is almost as bad. If they change the recipe of the salmon and you complain that it's not the same as last time, most reputable restaurants will comp the meal and let you order something else instead (unless you've already eaten it all). There's a small amount of similarity to justify making the analogy, but the same is true of the retailer analogy.

Also, people ARE getting full refunds. Just not from D3, because they don't have the tinykitties to admit that the tinykittied it up. They have to go to Apple/Google (reputable companies) to get their refunds instead.

Bacon Pants

I want to respond to rockmonster, but I don't feel like wasting my time with that nonsense.

Unknown

RockMonster wrote:

ebodibo wrote:

Jester Day wrote:

My "expectation" is to be able to use what I paid for. And if that changes, I want to be able to get a refund or equivalent credit. Is that not fair?

If your expectation was to be allowed heroes that trivialised the game, I would say that your expectations were unfounded. So no, it actually isn't all that fair. The only time you can expect a full refund is if you return the product, most of the times unused (though sometimes allowances are made). Here, you expect to get back what you spent, and be allowed to spend it again, despite still having access to the product.

Can it be handled better? Yes. But what you suggest has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with wishing to hold on to an edge that should not be there.

Good point, perhaps I should clarify, let me sell off / return the "modified" product for equivalent credit. So that it can be respec'ed or used elsewhere.

As for product refunds, I was generalizing, but to be specific the most successful companies do this, Amazon, Zappos, Target, Macy's, Nordstrom, Von Maur and REI are all examples where you can return something if you are not satisfied with the product, even if used.

I just don't see why as consumers we should just accept whatever is done to us.[/quote]

There are millions of reasons why they don't give a full refund with every change. Here's a couple:

- There's overall industry practice. You mention a bunch of competing retail outlets that give full refunds, but I don't see a lot of video games on there. WoW isn't giving you back your subscription fees or handing out Tier gear tokens just because they nerfed a rogue.

- You've gotten what you paid for. You paid for Thor, and you have Thor. The mechanics will change over time - that's a widely accepted fact in any online game - but you still have the "product" you paid for. You guys keep coming up with analogies tied to physical products, but it's closer to food at a restaurant. You buy the salmon, but you don't buy the recipe. The restaurant is free to change the ingredients any time they like, and if they do, you don't get to ask for a refund on every salmon dish you've ever had from that place.

- You don't own the stuff you buy in a game. It's not yours. You don't get to as play Wolverine in Candy Crush, you don't get to take him to school for show and tell. You get to use their property for a little while within their game. But they can do whatever they want with their stuff.

-[/quote]

So what you are saying is that you like paying for things and having them taken away from you. Well if that's your stance, then fine.

Paying taxes to the king was a overall common practice back before the revolutionary war. But some people choose to do something about it. My standpoint is that this is not right.

And if you order salmon at a restaurant and didn't like it, you send it back and have them prepare it the way you like it. If you still don't like it you order something else or get a refund (and you don't order it any more moving forward). Any good restaurant does this and will not charge you extra without hesitation. The long term benefit of having repeat business out weights the cost of the one dish. If you ordered salmon from a restaurant and didn't like it all the previous time and still ordered it, well then, you deserve a free ride on the short bus.

Unknown

donnbobhardy wrote:

RockMonster wrote:

There are millions of reasons why they don't give a full refund with every change. Here's a couple:

- There's overall industry practice. You mention a bunch of competing retail outlets that give full refunds, but I don't see a lot of video games on there. WoW isn't giving you back your subscription fees or handing out Tier gear tokens just because they nerfed a rogue.

- You've gotten what you paid for. You paid for Thor, and you have Thor. The mechanics will change over time - that's a widely accepted fact in any online game - but you still have the "product" you paid for. You guys keep coming up with analogies tied to physical products, but it's closer to food at a restaurant. You buy the salmon, but you don't buy the recipe. The restaurant is free to change the ingredients any time they like, and if they do, you don't get to ask for a refund on every salmon dish you've ever had from that place.

- You don't own the stuff you buy in a game. It's not yours. You don't get to as play Wolverine in Candy Crush, you don't get to take him to school for show and tell. You get to use their property for a little while within their game. But they can do whatever they want with their stuff.

Your analogy is almost as bad. If they change the recipe of the salmon and you complain that it's not the same as last time, most reputable restaurants will comp the meal and let you order something else instead (unless you've already eaten it all). There's a small amount of similarity to justify making the analogy, but the same is true of the retailer analogy.

Also, people ARE getting full refunds. Just not from D3, because they don't have the tinykitties to admit that the tinykittied it up. They have to go to Apple/Google (reputable companies) to get their refunds instead.

Thank you donnbobhardy, this is the most useful thing posted on this thread so far. I didn't realize I could do this.

Unknown

I actually look at it more like when they sort out an exploit in an MMO (most of them have it in their rules to report exploit if you find them, and not abuse them). If you build or sort gear/skills/buffs to gain an unfair advantage, you do not get back your invested time nor in game currencies. If you have been blatant you could even face a ban.

Now, a ban in this game for playing with overpowered characters would be plain silly. I think we can agree on that with little argument. But otherwise, I would argue that you were in the latest cases warned it was incoming. Making the case for the earlier nerfs (Ragnarock, Loki et all) to be allowed some leeway is in my mind fair, th company did not give prior warning. In the latest case though, I just do not feel that is true.

If you played and levelled them before the balancing, you got to use them while more powerful. Thus you have gotten your invested ISO back, even if you may feel it was perhaps not worth it. If you levelled them up AFTER the notification went up in game, you were warned what you got into. Not listening (fair enough, reading) to that is your own responsibility.

Also, I wonder how many people actually have gotten refunded. I am pretty sure it is not a huge amount.

Also, when it comes to product refunds: I live in Sweden. We very likely have better customer protection than almost any country in the world. If I buy a faulty product in any way, I can be assured that I can return it and get a replacement or my money back without much hassle. This is easier with physical product mind. If I buy a song digitally for example, it will never apply. This is a product more in line with that then regular physical goods. We have responsibilities as consumers as well, all of it can (and should) not be pushed over on the retailer/producer. What we pay for is the game, and the assets in the game itself via the currencies provided. We are the ones spending it, at our discretion. Thus we have some responsibility of our own.

Nothing forbids the company from stretching out a hand and giving a leg up after the last few weeks rockiness however. I can easily agree to that.

Unknown

Jester Day wrote:

I actually look at it more like when they sort out an exploit in an MMO (most of them have it in their rules to report exploit if you find them, and not abuse them). If you build or sort gear/skills/buffs to gain an unfair advantage, you do not get back your invested time nor in game currencies. If you have been blatant you could even face a ban.

Now, a ban in this game for playing with overpowered characters would be plain silly. I think we can agree on that with little argument. But otherwise, I would argue that you were in the latest cases warned it was incoming. Making the case for the earlier nerfs (Ragnarock, Loki et all) to be allowed some leeway is in my mind fair, th company did not give prior warning. In the latest case though, I just do not feel that is true.

If you played and levelled them before the balancing, you got to use them while more powerful. Thus you have gotten your invested ISO back, even if you may feel it was perhaps not worth it. If you levelled them up AFTER the notification went up in game, you were warned what you got into. Not listening (fair enough, reading) to that is your own responsibility.

Also, I wonder how many people actually have gotten refunded. I am pretty sure it is not a huge amount.

Also, when it comes to product refunds: I live in Sweden. We very likely have better customer protection than almost any country in the world. If I buy a faulty product in any way, I can be assured that I can return it and get a replacement or my money back without much hassle. This is easier with physical product mind. If I buy a song digitally for example, it will never apply. This is a product more in line with that then regular physical goods. We have responsibilities as consumers as well, all of it can (and should) not be pushed over on the retailer/producer. What we pay for is the game, and the assets in the game itself via the currencies provided. We are the ones spending it, at our discretion. Thus we have some responsibility of our own.

Nothing forbids the company from stretching out a hand and giving a leg up after the last few weeks rockiness however. I can easily agree to that.

Sorry you are not let off the hook just because it is a digital product. As far as exploits go that is apples and oranges.

Unknown

Explain why it is apples and oranges? In both cases, you are utilizing an edge that was not meant to be there, via overpowered characters. It was easy to figure out, but you still benefitted from using them.


Also, you are not left off the hook for digital product. But provided they delivered what they were paid to deliver (which they have), you will very much have a far harder time getting that refund.

Unknown

Nope. Tons of people have had no problems getting refunds. There was a whole thread about it awhile back.

Unknown

If by tons you mean perhaps three dozen people with one saying over and over again that he managed. Not really my definition of tons, unless they were extraordinarily heavy.

Unknown

Jester Day wrote:

Explain why it is apples and oranges? In both cases, you are utilizing an edge that was not meant to be there, via overpowered characters. It was easy to figure out, but you still benefitted from using them.


Also, you are not left off the hook for digital product. But provided they delivered what they were paid to deliver (which they have), you will very much have a far harder time getting that refund.

Lol now its an exploit to use characters as they are in the game. If it was such a crucial problem then why did it take god knows how long to "fix it". I hardly used either of them I was working to get them playable but that isn't the point. Using strong characters isn't an exploit. No more than me not being able to play the **** ones.

Talk about being in denial. They screwed people that put time and effort into what they paid for when they took it away with out fair recompense. Really sad how folks like you can't understand that. If you want to go through life being a doormat have at it.

Unknown

Jester Day wrote:

If by tons you mean perhaps three dozen people with one saying over and over again that he managed. Not really my definition of tons, unless they were extraordinarily heavy.

It's obvious he's just here to be an obnoxious troll.

Unknown

Jester Day wrote:

If by tons you mean perhaps three dozen people with one saying over and over again that he managed. Not really my definition of tons, unless they were extraordinarily heavy.

Hey now, it's just an idiomatic expression. He's just implying that it has been done before.

Ok... I'll apologize for all my heated messages. Let's try all try and be constructive.

Unknown

justaplayer wrote:

Lol now its an exploit to use characters as they are in the game. If it was such a crucial problem then why did it take god knows how long to "fix it". I hardly used either of them I was working to get them playable but that isn't the point. Using strong characters isn't an exploit. No more than me not being able to play the **** ones.

The act of exploiting is simply to utilize something for your own ends, in this case, characters that were overpowered. They are now reined in, and more in line where they like them to be (supposedly a this point at least). It does in no way infer anything more.

Talk about being in denial. They screwed people that put time and effort into what they paid for when they took it away with out fair recompense. Really sad how folks like you can't understand that. If you want to go through life being a doormat have at it.

I think you are confusing being in denial with actually having a different opinion. I do not accept being sold broken things. But that is not what has happened here. You want to try and make it so. That doesn't change that it is a truth you want, instead of a truth that is.