Changes to rewards structure should trigger refund options

Eddiemon

HawkeyeSucks wrote:

This is the whole point.

All of this other talk about entitlements is overreaching. He simply asked since the pvp reward change was so soon after. It would have only helped D3 to oblige, instead another stain on their customer service

What 'stain'?

I bought something and then I won one of the something I bought and they won't give me my money back isn't a 'stain'. That's not normal expected behaviour by anyone not self absorbed. He didn't get a defective cover, the character didn't suddenly get changed on him. In fact none of the paramaters that existed when he made his purchasing decision changed.

If he'd pulled one from a regular character token would there still be a 'stain' if they didn't refund it? Or is it only a stain because they added extra rewards and that's different? You gave me more stuff, so now you need to give me even more stuff or it is bad customer service.

And it is all about being self-entitled. Your supposed 'friend' says it is bad customer service because they are not giving him free stuff. How is that anything but entitlement? Your default position is that your 'friend' is entitled to a refund, and that it is bad customer service not to give him one. If 'he' weren't entitled to one, then there would be no 'stain' in not handing one out.

Your 'friend' is butt-hurt that 'they' gambled and lost. But it must be someone else's fault because they aren't adult enough to make their own decisions.

Unknown

-.-

To those complaining about 'entitlement', I would reiterate:

Spoit

But seriously. Did they ever issue a final statement about the Rags nerf 'solution'?

Unknown

I think it was "deal with it".

WilsonFisk

I didn't read this whole thread, but early on I spent HP to level my OBW. Within 1-2 days I got all the covers I would have needed. **** luck, but it happens. Didn't blame D3 for it.

On the other hand, if you spend a bunch of HP on a guy, and then they nerf him, I can see a legit complaint there as they're changing the product you paid for post-purchase.

Unknown

laoahpeh wrote:

HawkeyeSucks wrote:

Impulse wrote:

It doesn't cost them anything to refund some HP, indeed it would probably make the player more like to purchase in the future than I imagine he's now inclined to do

This is the whole point.

All of this other talk about entitlements is overreaching. He simply asked since the pvp reward change was so soon after. It would have only helped D3 to oblige, instead another stain on their customer service

You called them "low class". IMO that reeks of self entitlement. And frankly insulting.

Well, their customer service IS LOW CLASS, so no it really isn't entitement, it's his opinion and it's shared by others. I dont know why you'd be insulted; D3 certianly isn't since they have this persons $$$$$.

HailMary

MikeHock wrote:

Well, their customer service IS LOW CLASS, so no it really isn't entitement, it's his opinion and it's shared by others.

So it's the opinion of an self-entitled person who's not alone in his self-entitlement. Where's the contradiction?

He's basically saying "D3 must apologize to me for my great but slightly-late luck, otherwise they're total poopyheads." It's patently absurd. Did cover prices get lowered? No. Did OBW get nerfed? No. As a person who went through 90% of his 2*-3* transition with an unusable 1/2/1 OBW, I have precisely zero sympathy for the OP's complaint. Pretending that this is some dastardly "stain" on their customer service is utterly laughable.

chadds wrote:

I didn't read this whole thread, but early on I spent HP to level my OBW. Within 1-2 days I got all the covers I would have needed. **** luck, but it happens. Didn't blame D3 for it.

On the other hand, if you spend a bunch of HP on a guy, and then they nerf him, I can see a legit complaint there as they're changing the product you paid for post-purchase.

QFT.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

MikeHock wrote:

Well, their customer service IS LOW CLASS, so no it really isn't entitement, it's his opinion and it's shared by others.

So it's the opinion of an self-entitled person who's not alone in his self-entitlement. Where's the contradiction?

He's basically saying "D3 must apologize to me for my great but slightly-late luck, otherwise they're total poopyheads." It's patently absurd. Did cover prices get lowered? No. Did OBW get nerfed? No. As a person who went through 90% of his 2*-3* transition with an unusable 1/2/1 OBW, I have precisely zero sympathy for the OP's complaint. Pretending that this is some dastardly "stain" on their customer service is utterly laughable.

chadds wrote:

I didn't read this whole thread, but early on I spent HP to level my OBW. Within 1-2 days I got all the covers I would have needed. **** luck, but it happens. Didn't blame D3 for it.

On the other hand, if you spend a bunch of HP on a guy, and then they nerf him, I can see a legit complaint there as they're changing the product you paid for post-purchase.

QFT.

I was merely commenting on the "low class" comment and don't feel that the OP sharing his opinion reflects a sense of entitlement.

Unknown

MikeHock wrote:

laoahpeh wrote:

HawkeyeSucks wrote:

Impulse wrote:

It doesn't cost them anything to refund some HP, indeed it would probably make the player more like to purchase in the future than I imagine he's now inclined to do

This is the whole point.

All of this other talk about entitlements is overreaching. He simply asked since the pvp reward change was so soon after. It would have only helped D3 to oblige, instead another stain on their customer service

You called them "low class". IMO that reeks of self entitlement. And frankly insulting.

Well, their customer service IS LOW CLASS, so no it really isn't entitement, it's his opinion and it's shared by others. I dont know why you'd be insulted; D3 certianly isn't since they have this persons $$$$$.

Could D3 have done better? Probably. Are they in the wrong? Certainly not, this dude got exactly what he is paying for. For avoidance of doubt, I was referring to D3 in my "insult" comment.

Your last comment... I don't even know where to start. CS horror stories starts with attitude like this.

user311

Okay real life, my wife goes to Kohls and buys a **** ton of clothes. The next day she gets a coupon in the mail. She calls them and asks if they can refund or credit her the difference. Serious this happens like all the time. And every single time I'm like ****? But Kohls gives her the difference. They have no incentive at all to do this; and IMO are completely ignorant for doing it and then just encouraging this behavior... her behavior ... is low class. Just like people who by suits and dresses and use once and return after using them. But to say the store could be low class for not honoring her coupon or accepting a return - thats far from valid. I mention this because I could see some similarities to MPQ if the OP had purchased a Logans Loonies pack of 2900HP and then the next day it went on sale for 3500. But we're still talking about a single cover. OP could have been 3/5 and been happy by earning that reward. Oh well nevermind this thread isnt going anywhere.

Unknown

Honestly, I have come to not expect much from d3p CS, but the response quoted in the OP was really HIGH class, if anything. It was on topic and polite. When you take into account that d3p is not going to be able to let every player return that Tarmogoyf they bought just because they opened one in a pack soon after, I honestly don't see how they could have handled that complaint better

Heck, maybe without the more powerful OBW from purchases your friend would have lost those battles that let him win the further covers! Who knows?

scottee

This is partially about precedence. If they give the refund, OP's post is "really high class move" instead of "really low class move" and CS starts getting flooded with forumites trying to manipulate CS to do the same for them, thinking, "they have to, cause they did it for that other guy".

Unknown

I think people are missing the point. The issue is NOT that OP's friend bought a cover, then got the same cover again in the game and wants refund.

The issue is that at the time of purchase, OP's friend was contemplating whether to buy the cover or not. Given the rewards structure at that time, he felt the need to purchase the cover. If he had known about the changes to additional tokens being given after winning a match and higher percentage of 2* covers from Standard tokens, maybe he would not have made the purchase.

Given that this change that affected his purchasing decision happened so close to the time of his actual purchase, OP's friend feels he should get a refund. That's the real issue being raised from my understanding.

Unknown

Team_Xtreme wrote:

I think people are missing the point. The issue is NOT that OP's friend bought a cover, then got the same cover again in the game and wants refund.

The issue is that at the time of purchase, OP's friend was contemplating whether to buy the cover or not. Given the rewards structure at that time, he felt the need to purchase the cover. If he had known about the changes to additional tokens being given after winning a match and higher percentage of 2* covers from Standard tokens, maybe he would not have made the purchase.

Given that this change that affected his purchasing decision happened so close to the time of his actual purchase, OP's friend feels he should get a refund. That's the real issue being raised from my understanding.

That's ****. The change isn't any different than the 100s of standard tokens its possible to get per week. He took a risk and ended up getting lucky pulling an OBW blue cover from a battle.

There's 57 possible cover pulls from a battle. It's entirely random that he got OBW Blue and could have gotten nothing instead.

What OP and his "friend" are doing is akin to complaining that they bought a blue OBW and then pulled one from a standard token the next day. There's literally no difference.

D3P changes the reward structure to give out MORE covers and it leads to ****. My god, some of you people are insane.

Unknown

jozier wrote:

Team_Xtreme wrote:

I think people are missing the point. The issue is NOT that OP's friend bought a cover, then got the same cover again in the game and wants refund.

The issue is that at the time of purchase, OP's friend was contemplating whether to buy the cover or not. Given the rewards structure at that time, he felt the need to purchase the cover. If he had known about the changes to additional tokens being given after winning a match and higher percentage of 2* covers from Standard tokens, maybe he would not have made the purchase.

Given that this change that affected his purchasing decision happened so close to the time of his actual purchase, OP's friend feels he should get a refund. That's the real issue being raised from my understanding.

That's ****. The change isn't any different than the 100s of standard tokens its possible to get per week. He took a risk and ended up getting lucky pulling an OBW blue cover from a battle.

There's 57 possible cover pulls from a battle. It's entirely random that he got OBW Blue and could have gotten nothing instead.

What OP and his "friend" are doing is akin to complaining that they bought a blue OBW and then pulled one from a standard token the next day. There's literally no difference.

D3P changes the reward structure to give out MORE covers and it leads to ****. My god, some of you people are insane.

Unknown

Impulse wrote:

jozier wrote:

Team_Xtreme wrote:

I think people are missing the point. The issue is NOT that OP's friend bought a cover, then got the same cover again in the game and wants refund.

The issue is that at the time of purchase, OP's friend was contemplating whether to buy the cover or not. Given the rewards structure at that time, he felt the need to purchase the cover. If he had known about the changes to additional tokens being given after winning a match and higher percentage of 2* covers from Standard tokens, maybe he would not have made the purchase.

Given that this change that affected his purchasing decision happened so close to the time of his actual purchase, OP's friend feels he should get a refund. That's the real issue being raised from my understanding.

That's ****. The change isn't any different than the 100s of standard tokens its possible to get per week. He took a risk and ended up getting lucky pulling an OBW blue cover from a battle.

There's 57 possible cover pulls from a battle. It's entirely random that he got OBW Blue and could have gotten nothing instead.

What OP and his "friend" are doing is akin to complaining that they bought a blue OBW and then pulled one from a standard token the next day. There's literally no difference.

D3P changes the reward structure to give out MORE covers and it leads to ****. My god, some of you people are insane.

I used multiple words. You use a **** meme that doesn't fit in the context.

Unknown

user311 wrote:

Okay real life, my wife goes to Kohls and buys a tinykitty ton of clothes. The next day she gets a coupon in the mail. She calls them and asks if they can refund or credit her the difference. Serious this happens like all the time. And every single time I'm like ****? But Kohls gives her the difference. They have no incentive at all to do this; and IMO are completely ignorant for doing it and then just encouraging this behavior... her behavior ... is low class. Just like people who by suits and dresses and use once and return after using them. But to say the store could be low class for not honoring her coupon or accepting a return - thats far from valid. I mention this because I could see some similarities to MPQ if the OP had purchased a Logans Loonies pack of 2900HP and then the next day it went on sale for 3500. But we're still talking about a single cover. OP could have been 3/5 and been happy by earning that reward. Oh well nevermind this thread isnt going anywhere.

They do have incentive to do it. They're thinking long term rather than short term. In the short term, they refund your wife ten bucks or whatever, so they're down ten dollars. But they're counting on your wife being pleased by their service and coming back. The alternative is they don't give a refund, and the best case scenario is your wife waits for a sale to buy clothes, and then goes to wherever the sale is, potentially not Kohls, and they get her money. But if your wife knows that Kohls will honor competitor's sales, she's more inclined to spend her money there. Honoring a competitor's coupon is better than no sale. The worst case scenario for them if they don't refund is your wife gets angry and avoids Kohls out of spite, which is also usually an unwise choice over keeping the ten bucks.

Now, if I've sold you a refrigerator off craigslist and you see one on sale the next day, I have no incentive to give you money back, because I have no expectation of a future business relationship between us. For a brick and mortar store, they need to develop and maintain relationships, or they cease to exist. It's not a unique policy of Kohl's, incidentally, a lot of retailers do it.

Unknown

jozier wrote:

Team_Xtreme wrote:

I think people are missing the point. The issue is NOT that OP's friend bought a cover, then got the same cover again in the game and wants refund.

The issue is that at the time of purchase, OP's friend was contemplating whether to buy the cover or not. Given the rewards structure at that time, he felt the need to purchase the cover. If he had known about the changes to additional tokens being given after winning a match and higher percentage of 2* covers from Standard tokens, maybe he would not have made the purchase.

Given that this change that affected his purchasing decision happened so close to the time of his actual purchase, OP's friend feels he should get a refund. That's the real issue being raised from my understanding.

That's ****. The change isn't any different than the 100s of standard tokens its possible to get per week. He took a risk and ended up getting lucky pulling an OBW blue cover from a battle.

There's 57 possible cover pulls from a battle. It's entirely random that he got OBW Blue and could have gotten nothing instead.

What OP and his "friend" are doing is akin to complaining that they bought a blue OBW and then pulled one from a standard token the next day. There's literally no difference.

D3P changes the reward structure to give out MORE covers and it leads to ****. My god, some of you people are insane.

Yes, if they buy a 2* cover and then pull it the next day from token, they have no reason to complain. It's just bad luck.

But if they buy that 2* cover, then next day there's higher chance of earning tokens and 2* covers in particular, I can see why someone would be upset.

Unknown

jozier wrote:

Impulse wrote:

jozier wrote:

Team_Xtreme wrote:

I think people are missing the point. The issue is NOT that OP's friend bought a cover, then got the same cover again in the game and wants refund.

The issue is that at the time of purchase, OP's friend was contemplating whether to buy the cover or not. Given the rewards structure at that time, he felt the need to purchase the cover. If he had known about the changes to additional tokens being given after winning a match and higher percentage of 2* covers from Standard tokens, maybe he would not have made the purchase.

Given that this change that affected his purchasing decision happened so close to the time of his actual purchase, OP's friend feels he should get a refund. That's the real issue being raised from my understanding.

That's ****. The change isn't any different than the 100s of standard tokens its possible to get per week. He took a risk and ended up getting lucky pulling an OBW blue cover from a battle.

There's 57 possible cover pulls from a battle. It's entirely random that he got OBW Blue and could have gotten nothing instead.

What OP and his "friend" are doing is akin to complaining that they bought a blue OBW and then pulled one from a standard token the next day. There's literally no difference.

D3P changes the reward structure to give out MORE covers and it leads to ****. My god, some of you people are insane.

I used multiple words. You use a tinykitty meme that doesn't fit in the context.

It could be that I'm refering to the one I bolded, Sherlock.

Unknown

Impulse wrote:

It could be that I'm refering to the one I bolded, Sherlock.

There isn't a bolded word in the post, so don't be a snarky little idiot when you're the one looking stupid.

http://imgur.com/GuZV1A3