Changes to rewards structure should trigger refund options

Unknown

if you squint really hard the word literally seems to be bolded, but that might be just dust on my monitor cause it's really hard to notice and I can barely tell

Unknown

I dunno about you guys but if i was to try to highlight a word there seem to be a few good options to do it.

But overall, yeah the bold on here isnt very functional overall

unless of course its a whole sentence

HailMary

Team_Xtreme wrote:

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.

I nearly bought two LT covers literally 2-3 hours before the start of the last LT-rewards PVP (and yes, I ended up getting 3 LT covers from that PVP, which maxed my LT).

If I actually went through with it (I was actually staring at the little buy-cover button for a while), I don't expect a refund on my purchase simply because I wasn't told of an imminent increase in the probability of getting LT covers.

Sure, I'd definitely think "Godkittyit, that was f---ing terrible timing. I just wasted 2500 HP, which was basically my entire supply of happiness." and fume a bit, but I'm not going to whine that D3's customer service sucks goat bollocks because I mistimed the purchase of covers -- covers that are still worth exactly the same in terms of both HP cost and upgrade strength.

Unknown

The fact stores are willing to refund the difference is more of a tactic to get price fixing without being sued. That is, it is illegal for me to call up all the other stores and say 'let's sell this for $10 because that's the price to maximize our profit". But I can sell something for $10 and say I'll match the difference plus another 10% and usually that's enough to make people not undercut me and I can sell at whatever I believe is the best price, at least if I'm not up against Walmart or Costco (who will undercut me anyway).

In this case D3 is the sole supplier of covers so they can simply set all the item costs at whatever they believe is the profit maximizing price. If you could buy your covers from Blizzard at a lower price for some inexplicable reason, you might actually get a refund from D3 too due to competition, but this scenario is simply impossible. I bought 2 Black Panther black covers and got 2 of them from standard tokens the moment he was available in those tokens. But if I didn't buy those 2 covers I might not have pulled those Black Panther black for a long time too.

Unknown

HawkeyeSucks wrote:

Giving him back his 500 HP costs the devs $0

I often see things like this and it's completely untrue. Customer service costs money, so even if the HP are technically free to Demiurge, one of the things that has to be evaluated in any request is whether a given response is likely to result in large numbers of additional requests in the future. Even if CS is sympathetic and wants to help you out, they always need to keep the bigger picture in mind.

Unknown

ZenBrillig wrote:

HawkeyeSucks wrote:

Giving him back his 500 HP costs the devs $0

I often see things like this and it's completely untrue. Customer service costs money, so even if the HP are technically free to Demiurge, one of the things that has to be evaluated in any request is whether a given response is likely to result in large numbers of additional requests in the future. Even if CS is sympathetic and wants to help you out, they always need to keep the bigger picture in mind.

There's nothing inherently right or wrong on whether they offer a refund, though offering a refund certainly isn't something that'd be considered the normal response. For example in MMORPGs there are games that charges you a decent amount to transfer your character and there are games that charge you nothing to do it. Generally the process is automated so it costs pretty much nothing to do so. The games that charge you money figure it's an additional revenue resource, while the games that do not figure the goodwill generated will lead to future sales. Both are reasonable interpretations, and one has no right to expect one philosophy over another.

Unknown

HawkeyeSucks wrote:

Not even 2 days later they started giving out 2* covers for Lightning rounds and other PvP events. He ended up getting the very cover he bought, 3 times over. He sent a letter to D3 to express his frustration at this point and it goes like this:

Hello, I recently purchased a 5th Blue ability for Original Black Widow for 500 coins, and a day later you began to offer covers as rewards for lightning rounds where I received 2 blue covers in the same event. I have been playing since launch and recently decided to purchase $20 worth of coins. I love the game but I feel that with the recent change I gave up my coins unnecessarily. Please credit back the coins I spent. I say nothing but good things about the game and have persuaded quite a few friends to play as well. Thank you.

A pretty reasonable request.

I somewhat can feel for those who spent HP to buy Rags cover a few days before nerf -- they might even had some refund -- but for this I absolutely fail to see how it is 'reasonable'.

If you read the actually reasonable guides and advice to the game, all say the same: spend HP only on roster slots. Possibly on shield in proper circumstances (may not apply at all lately). AVOID every other HP spend, including health packs, boosts, tokens and cover upgrade.

(And applying the 5th blue OBW is questionable even from spare covers but that is another story).

But your friend wanted it, wanted it NOW rather than do what most other players, wait till it appears naturally. And he got exactly what he was after for the price he was happy to pay.

What is the case for the refund?

Those playing MPQ sell a ton of covers, starting with *s then eventually ** and even ***+. That is the way it goes. And just for him getting stuff to sell way too soon after purchase? Come on!

Unknown

I feel for this guy, not because he got the cover he bought but because he bought something just before it was essentially massively devalued. The change to PvP rewards makes 2* covers so MASSIVELY more common that the guy would never have bought the cover if he knew what was coming. D3 knew what was coming and didn't bother telling people with any kind of reasonable notice.

I think anyone spending on 1* or 2* covers just before that change (which would be well after they DECIDED to make the change) would have a reason to feel aggrieved about it.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

ZenBrillig wrote:

HawkeyeSucks wrote:

Giving him back his 500 HP costs the devs $0

I often see things like this and it's completely untrue. Customer service costs money, so even if the HP are technically free to Demiurge, one of the things that has to be evaluated in any request is whether a given response is likely to result in large numbers of additional requests in the future. Even if CS is sympathetic and wants to help you out, they always need to keep the bigger picture in mind.

There's nothing inherently right or wrong on whether they offer a refund, though offering a refund certainly isn't something that'd be considered the normal response. For example in MMORPGs there are games that charges you a decent amount to transfer your character and there are games that charge you nothing to do it. Generally the process is automated so it costs pretty much nothing to do so. The games that charge you money figure it's an additional revenue resource, while the games that do not figure the goodwill generated will lead to future sales. Both are reasonable interpretations, and one has no right to expect one philosophy over another.

But those games that offer free transfers do not involve a CS call. CS calls are very expensive, so I don't think your example has anything to do with the point I was making.

Unknown

ZenBrillig wrote:

But those games that offer free transfers do not involve a CS call. CS calls are very expensive, so I don't think your example has anything to do with the point I was making.

Okay, then let's say your account was hacked so you call CS to help restoring. They can either say:

1. Sorry your fault.
2. Help you out.

It costs them time and money to restore the stuff and also verify that you're not indeed lying. You can legitmately argue that it's the player's fault for being stupid, but in this case an overwhelmingly amount of time the game in question will help you out.

I'm just saying the cost of something isn't a justification to do or not to do something. It costs money to restore accounts but most companies sees that as positive value for long term gain so they'll do it. So I don't like the argument 'it costs them something' because it doesn't matter if they believe they get more out of it. But, the choice is up to the company, not the consumer. There are also games that just tells you too bad if you get hacked, and that might not be what you want to hear but it's also a totally valid solution. I don't think users have a right to demand a particular solution, especially here the one requested is most definitely not the norm, but ultimately it's still the company that decides what they want to do.

Unknown

i bouhgt 4 rag covers literally the day before the unannounced change, i got jack **** for it, they kept alluding to doing something about it, but nothing.. ever..

Moral

Is the argument being made the cover in question would not have been purchased had the buyer known the reward was being switched to minimally tweaked heroic tokens?

Because opening up those tokens to all 3* characters would get him a non featured <1% chance of getting that blue cover?

Because that's seriously the argument I'm hearing here.

Unknown

I am truly sorry for your friend - I totally feel for them. I spent about a hundred right before the rag nerf and I was irate. I also contacted cs but did not receive a response for a month Not surprisingly, the rag nerf had a lot of players putting in cs tickets and the whole staff was trying to go through them during overtime and such. No wonder it took so long for them to get back to me. Anyway, the response I received was quite similar to the one your friend did. It hurt. But if they had to refund players for every change - the manpower and expenses would be ridiculous. We would not see any new covers or events. It's a tricky situation.

Edited: removed stuff

Spoit

Oh so you did actually get a real response about the rags nerf from CS?

mjh

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 (of his HP). That's the real issue being raised from my understanding.

This.

Again, most people here are taking this to an extremity and missing the point, outlined above.

For what it's worth, the Rags-nerf situation is unbelievable. I wasn't even playing yet, I'm only on day 57 but my friend in question is 190+. Anybody who had that happen should have been compensated in someway. These gestures, which I will stand by and say cost D3 $0, go far and beyond to keep users for the long run and refer new players.

Unknown

pandaberry6 wrote:

Redacted

Redacted.

(pandaberry withdrew the comment to avoid possibly causing problems, which makes my response moot.)

Unknown

ZenBrillig wrote:

pandaberry6 wrote:

Anyway, back in dec I went through the apple store to get my refund since they have te te staff to deal with it, my purchase was refunded immediately. Perhaps that is a good route for your friend to go through too?

That's interesting - most online games will ban your account if you do a chargeback like that.

I tried to contact d3 a half dozen times with no response. I didn't get what was advertised that I paid for. It was all on the up and up. However I will go back and remove it from my post because I don't want that to happen to anyone on my advice.

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

Oh so you did actually get a real response about the rags nerf from CS?

D3PCS (D3 Publisher)
Jan 27 17:21

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback regarding our title. As I am sure you can imagine, this was an issue that created a number of responses, both positive and negative. While we feel that this change was a good move for the MPQ community as a whole, we understand why people may have been frustrated (both by the actual change and the way the change was handled).

With this in mind, we have tried to take steps to ensure players will not be caught completely unaware when such changes are planned in the future. We have started posting updates, both in-game and on the community forums, listing our planned character changes. In fact, you may have noticed a message that states both Thor and Wolverine are next in line for adjustments. Our hope is that this will give players more of a heads-up to changes that are in the works.

In addition, we plan to provide more insight into why these changes were made. We recently posted a character update for Invisible Woman on the forums that not only listed what changes were made, but WHY those changes were made. We want there to be more transparency into our updates.

Finally, we are looking into special buy-back feature that will allow users to sell that character at a greatly increased rate for a short period of time if the player determines that the changes have created a character that no longer fits the players ideal play style.

We thank you for your patience while we work to improve this game. Please be sure to keep a lookout on the forums for more updates on our plans.

Thanks,

D3Publisher Support Team

Unknown

HawkeyeSucks 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 (of his HP). That's the real issue being raised from my understanding.

This.

Again, most people here are taking this to an extremity and missing the point, outlined above.

For what it's worth, the Rags-nerf situation is unbelievable. I wasn't even playing yet, I'm only on day 57 but my friend in question is 190+. Anybody who had that happen should have been compensated in someway. These gestures, which I will stand by and say cost D3 $0, go far and beyond to keep users for the long run and refer new players.

It's more your choice of words than anything. Saying you're upset and calling d3 low class are two different things. The new title is better.

Unknown

And everything in their response has been 100% true. They have given us transparency regarding their nerf lineup. They offer decent resell prices after covers are changed. It was a big Opps and they learned from it. Which is why I am still here.