I always thought (without not a shred of evidence obviously) that Demiurge read the forums, saw the overwhelming EXPECTATION that Carol would be meta and deliberately thumbed us all in the eye. I mean - there is no reason for them to do that and I don't see what benefit it would accrue apart from Lols but it is just the best story! Then when they found out she was better than they had planned, they struck again! I can see them all at their desks having a good chuckle whilst the forums thrashed around in bemused disbelief and then the rained down unanswered conspiracy just when you thought it was safe to be cosmic, zap - was the green power going to power up a future 5*? Was it done to break a winfinite but...the winfinite is still there?!?!? Oh how they laughed and laughed!
I mean...if it was all by accident then THAT sounds unlikely!
4* Carol was massively popular and well used because she was (at the time) kind of a benchmark 4*. So it wouldn’t surprise me if the fact that there were an above average number of big Carols in the wild meant they were going to give out a lot more retro covers than Demi was comfortable with led to 5* Carol getting undermined some.
@ThaRoadWarrior said: 4* Carol was massively popular and well used because she was (at the time) kind of a benchmark 4*. So it wouldn’t surprise me if the fact that there were an above average number of big Carols in the wild meant they were going to give out a lot more retro covers than Demi was comfortable with led to 5* Carol getting undermined some.
Carol didn't have a feeder when she came out, that came with Shardmas. Remember that was during the time when Demi claimed that there were no suitable feeders for a lot of 5s, including Phoenix, in a world where 4* Jean exists.
@Bowgentle said: @ThaRoadWarrior said: 4* Carol was massively popular and well used because she was (at the time) kind of a benchmark 4*. So it wouldn’t surprise me if the fact that there were an above average number of big Carols in the wild meant they were going to give out a lot more retro covers than Demi was comfortable with led to 5* Carol getting undermined some. Carol didn't have a feeder when she came out, that came with Shardmas. Remember that was during the time when Demi claimed that there were no suitable feeders for a lot of 5s, including Phoenix, in a world where 4* Jean exists.
@Bowgentle said:
But...the time space difference...and also...teenage...meant did not compute.
I thought they'd have to offer compensation because of consumer rights laws.
I mean, in the UK, virtual items purchased within video games has to be as described or they have broken consumer right laws.
Nerfing a character is changing how they've been described.
https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/digital/digital-content
I think the only way to get around that is compensation.
I might be totally wrong about this though. I am not a solicitor.
@Blergh said: I thought they'd have to offer compensation because of consumer rights laws. I mean, in the UK, virtual items purchased within video games has to be as described or they have broken consumer right laws.
@Blergh said: I thought they'd have to offer compensation because of consumer rights laws.
Without throwing out a bunch of links to Wikipedia or Reddit, the short answer is that mobile games historically have not had to do any compensation in any country based on any laws. Essentially, we do not "own" the characters or even our account. Mobile game developers have been nerfing characters in mobile games well before MPQ and there are no laws around compensation that anyone has been able to find.
It wont be simple if anybody was to go the legal route. I do happen to have a law degree but I am very far from an expert on this and this whole area appears messy to me.
The biggest problem facing any claim I can see here is whether Chasm has been provided for "free" or as part of any paid for service. This is a very complicated question which has multiple answers to it and changes how the Consumer Rights Act applies. Unpicking that is a mess. I doubt many if any players could honestly know how the LT's or CPs they used to obtain Chasm were all initially obtained and it is likely a lot of "free to play" players never actually spent a single dime on obtaining and covering Chasm. It also depends on whether alterations made now alter the basic premise of Chasm as per the Reasonable Man test. We do actually have evidence that Chasm was created and designed to be over tuned which would make legal argument quite interesting on that basis and due to the Developers statements leaves them slightly open but I doubt by all that much.
The Developers also have plenty of feedback evidence that suggests that any changes are in response to overwhelming customer feedback and so for the good of maintaining the overall game experience, they have to make these changes. In other words - You ASKED us to do this, so at the very worst the player base has a contributory responsibility in it happening!
The Consumer Rights Act is meant to cover inferior products - if your DVD has bad audio or your toaster exploded, rather than make judgments on tricky things such as perceived value of a product (which in Chasm case we know runs a gamut). If I have any spare time I might do a spot of research on precedent to see if there are any existing cases that are anywhere close to this - would be interesting to see a judge attempting to qualify it under the Acts terms, lol!
So...
If the change to Chasm is of enough significance that his usefulness is completely removed they may err on the side of caution and offer a buy back deal because that is much easier to do than cope with the potentially hundreds of different situations. Their T&C's already tell us that content provided is subject to change and alteration.
Whether they use the word "Compensation" to describe that will be interesting. They have certainly used that for past disruptions to players even though the content disrupted has no fee payable - whether that is in the interests of good customer relations or because they felt they had any liability to do so I have no idea.
Think it depends.
Tokens won arguable.
I'd say any one that bought chasm in offers or had him selected as fave in choose your own adventure would be directly entitled to a refund.
And the act covers digital goods and specifically in video game items. It was updated in 2015 to do so, and why playstation lost a consumer rights battle in the UK.
@LavaManLee said: @Blergh said: I thought they'd have to offer compensation because of consumer rights laws. I mean, in the UK, virtual items purchased within video games has to be as described or they have broken consumer right laws. Without throwing out a bunch of links to Wikipedia or Reddit, the short answer is that mobile games historically have not had to do any compensation in any country based on any laws. Essentially, we do not "own" the characters or even our account. Mobile game developers have been nerfing characters in mobile games well before MPQ and there are no laws around compensation that anyone has been able to find.
@LavaManLee said:
There is definitely no case on the above basis and any case brought would have to be ground breaking I would suspect.
The premise here is whether Chasm would still be deemed "satisfactory or fit for purpose" under the terms of The Consumer Rights Act as a digital product as originally intended. I mean, I can't really see how it should/could apply but just playing Devils Advocate the Devs admission that Chasm is an intended "special case" is one somebody would try and jump on to try and differentiate why this case would be different to all the others. Maybe somebody is rich enough and bored enough to try, lol!
There is no law that could forbid developers to do what they want in their game. Just Apple and Google refunds trought proved tickets= and devs have the right to cancel your account because of breaking terms of contract.
https://wjlta.com/2022/12/07/glorified-gambling-moral-and-legal-issues-within-the-gacha-gaming-industry/
@Bad said: There is no law that could forbid developers to do what they want in their game. Just Apple and Google refunds trought proved tickets= and devs have the right to cancel your account because of breaking terms of contract. https://wjlta.com/2022/12/07/glorified-gambling-moral-and-legal-issues-within-the-gacha-gaming-industry/
@Bad said: There is no law that could forbid developers to do what they want in their game. Just Apple and Google refunds trought proved tickets= and devs have the right to cancel your account because of breaking terms of contract.
The law isn't about what they do in-game.
The law is about how they market their in-game products and what the consumer can expect when they buy a digital item in an offer or bundle.
You are paying cash for an offer that is marketing that character or shards to that character based on the current description.
Digital goods have to meet three criteria A). expected quality fit for purpose C) as described (mostly due to false advertising regulations.)
The law isn't saying they can't nerf the character, but saying people that bought the offer under the old description of the product are entitled to a refund or compensation for that purchase.
@Blergh you read the article I provided. The law doesn't work when you have accepted contract terms and you have enjoyed the articles purchased. And gacha games right now are so outside of law as gambling. Try to issue owners of a roulette because you lost your money, and good luck with that.
@Blergh said: Think it depends. Tokens won arguable. I'd say any one that bought chasm in offers or had him selected as fave in choose your own adventure would be directly entitled to a refund. And the act covers digital goods and specifically in video game items. It was updated in 2015 to do so, and why playstation lost a consumer rights battle in the UK.
@Blergh said: Think it depends.
That would depend on quite a few things, not least a Judge being able to use statutory interpretation to decide if the Act applies to inherent value to a consumer of a product. There is a difference between whether a digital product is operating as advertised (i.e. your streaming service allows you to watch a whole film as paid for in your subscription) and whether that film separately meets a reasonable standard for being "satisfactory" as a digital product in terms of watchable quality.
I know the Act was updated and covers digital products. The Sony case was for excessive pricing of digital goods (unless there is another I am not aware of, possible of course) which I don't think has actually been heard yet (last I can find on it is from last year). They also lost a case in Australia for misleading T&C's about refunds.
I don't think either would help any case involving Chasm and a nerf/alteration to his operation.
@Blergh said: @Bad said: There is no law that could forbid developers to do what they want in their game. Just Apple and Google refunds trought proved tickets= and devs have the right to cancel your account because of breaking terms of contract. https://wjlta.com/2022/12/07/glorified-gambling-moral-and-legal-issues-within-the-gacha-gaming-industry/ The law isn't about what they do in-game. The law is about how they market their in-game products and what the consumer can expect when they buy a digital item in an offer or bundle. You are paying cash for an offer that is marketing that character or shards to that character based on the current description. Digital goods have to meet three criteria A). expected quality fit for purpose C) as described (mostly due to false advertising regulations.) The law isn't saying they can't nerf the character, but saying people that bought the offer under the old description of the product are entitled to a refund or compensation for that purchase.
@Blergh said:
Yeah but the law isn't making a quantifiable judgment on value to the consumer - it is simply checking to see within a reasonable framework if that product still fulfils the purpose under the Act. If Chasm remains available for use as a digital product after alterations then it is quite likely that the Consumer Rights Act test has been fulfilled because Judges are not looking to make decisions about whether something is "meta" or not - they don't even know what that means. But even if he doesn't then it doesn't mean that the Act will strike down anything - it would have to look at whether 505/BCS T&C's contain any exclusion clauses about the alteration and provision of content and if these fall afoul of things like the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) and various other consumer rights legislation and case law.
Again, I'll go back to the big difference: we don't "own" the character or even our account. They really can do whatever they want. They could turn every 5* into a 1* if they wanted to. Now, that's not good business and the game would be ruined but they could do it without recourse.
The other problem you're going to have is that I don't think BCS has any presence in the UK. If they don't, even if you got some massive judgement against them, you'd be dependent on American courts to enforce it, and American courts are generally loathe to do that for conduct that doesn't violate American laws. There are many, many examples of this in the past.
@Bad said:@Blergh you read the article I provided. The law doesn't work when you have accepted contract terms and you have enjoyed the articles purchased. And gacha games right now are so outside of law as gambling. Try to issue owners of a roulette because you lost your money, and good luck with that.
You can't sign away your consumer rights in a T&C.
It'd be deemed an unfair contract.
https://www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/unfair-terms-consumer-contracts#:~:text=A standard term is unfair,fairly and openly with consumers.
Unfair terms section.
Daz
"That would depend on quite a few things, not least a Judge being able to use statutory interpretation to decide if the Act applies to inherent value to a consumer of a product. There is a difference between whether a digital product is operating as advertised (i.e. your streaming service allows you to watch a whole film as paid for in your subscription) and whether that film separately meets a reasonable standard for being "satisfactory" as a digital product in terms of watchable quality."
I'd say it's more about the informed choice aspect.
The consumer is buying the product on what is currently being advertised. They've decided it is fit for purpose on the current information. That has changed. As the functionality of the product has changed. If that information changes, then the information they made that informed choice on is no longer enough for an informed purchase.
They've spent cash on an offer that no longer meets the product description. That's not an informed purchase.
The information wasn't available then, so they couldn't make the purchase with all the relevant facts.
Is there a way to make quotes easier on this forum?
@entrailbucket said: The other problem you're going to have is that I don't think BCS has any presence in the UK. If they don't, even if you got some massive judgement against them, you'd be dependent on American courts to enforce it, and American courts are generally loathe to do that for conduct that doesn't violate American laws. There are many, many examples of this in the past.
There are a few other simple things here:
1.) The T&C's specifically state that the Devs can bring in Territorial Restrictions for countries that have laws that are incompatible with the business. So in other words they could drop the UK market rather than deal with any law case. Sort of like Microsoft are threatening over the Competition Commissions UK block on the purchase of Activision Blizzard. 2.) The T&C's have a "No Guarantee" restriction in them so in other words - they just make Chasm disappear and no longer feature him. 3.) Finally...this
Jurisdiction and Applicable Law
**The law applicable to the interpretation and construction of these Terms of Use and any transaction (including purchases made via the Services) using or relating to the Services shall be the laws of the State of California **without regard to principles of conflict of laws AND WILL SPECIFICALLY NOT BE GOVERNED BY THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS, IF OTHERWISE APPLICABLE.
@Blergh said: @Bad said:@Blergh you read the article I provided. The law doesn't work when you have accepted contract terms and you have enjoyed the articles purchased. And gacha games right now are so outside of law as gambling. Try to issue owners of a roulette because you lost your money, and good luck with that. You can't sign away your consumer rights in a T&C. It'd be deemed an unfair contract. https://www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/unfair-terms-consumer-contracts#:~:text=A standard term is unfair,fairly and openly with consumers. Unfair terms section. Daz "That would depend on quite a few things, not least a Judge being able to use statutory interpretation to decide if the Act applies to inherent value to a consumer of a product. There is a difference between whether a digital product is operating as advertised (i.e. your streaming service allows you to watch a whole film as paid for in your subscription) and whether that film separately meets a reasonable standard for being "satisfactory" as a digital product in terms of watchable quality." I'd say it's more about the informed choice aspect. The consumer is buying the product on what is currently being advertised. They've decided it is fit for purpose on the current information. That has changed. As the functionality of the product has changed. If that information changes, then the information they made that informed choice on is no longer enough for an informed purchase. They've spent cash on an offer that no longer meets the product description. That's not an informed purchase. The information wasn't available then, so they couldn't make the purchase with all the relevant facts. Is there a way to make quotes easier on this forum?
Has there been a Chasm specific offer that you could purchase directly? Even his store only offers a chance so each purchase is in itself a gamble without a specified guaranteed product.
@DAZ0273 said: @Blergh said: @Bad said:@Blergh you read the article I provided. The law doesn't work when you have accepted contract terms and you have enjoyed the articles purchased. And gacha games right now are so outside of law as gambling. Try to issue owners of a roulette because you lost your money, and good luck with that. You can't sign away your consumer rights in a T&C. It'd be deemed an unfair contract. https://www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/unfair-terms-consumer-contracts#:~:text=A standard term is unfair,fairly and openly with consumers. Unfair terms section. Daz "That would depend on quite a few things, not least a Judge being able to use statutory interpretation to decide if the Act applies to inherent value to a consumer of a product. There is a difference between whether a digital product is operating as advertised (i.e. your streaming service allows you to watch a whole film as paid for in your subscription) and whether that film separately meets a reasonable standard for being "satisfactory" as a digital product in terms of watchable quality." I'd say it's more about the informed choice aspect. The consumer is buying the product on what is currently being advertised. They've decided it is fit for purpose on the current information. That has changed. As the functionality of the product has changed. If that information changes, then the information they made that informed choice on is no longer enough for an informed purchase. They've spent cash on an offer that no longer meets the product description. That's not an informed purchase. The information wasn't available then, so they couldn't make the purchase with all the relevant facts. Is there a way to make quotes easier on this forum? Has there been a Chasm specific offer that you could purchase directly? Even his store only offers a chance so each purchase is in itself a gamble without a specified guaranteed product.
@DAZ0273 said:
I dunno.
But I see five offers pop up regularly. Have one for Doom 5* and a Spiderman at the moment for £30ish. But the five is part of what is being marketed. I could buy it for Doom alone.
There have been several choose-your-own-adventure things that pop up where you get shards for your favourite character the purchase. I don't know whether Chasm was eligible for favourite in that. There have also been vaults that allow the same.
If someone has bought those because they want levels for an overpowered Chasm, they've been misled.
I don't know if he is in the feeder chain, but if someone has been pumping covers into a 4* and buying those covers with the intention of getting a Chasm, they've kind of been misled by a previous description.
There are lots of things people could have been buying with the purpose of getting shards/covers for a Chasm indirectly due to favourites. And I think if people have been doing that, they're due compensation. Wasted a lot of time, effort and resources building a character they no longer want.
So, his description could have been the influence for a lot of purchases not even directly connected to him.
If I was the company, I'd just give out compensation to save the headache from customer complaints.