The likelihood is they will offer some sort of buy back scheme.
We also know they have absolutely ZERO issues with giving the player base stuff based upon even a minor inconvenience, so I don't think they have huge objections to keeping up good will etc.
"They should give out compensation so players don't complain" is a million miles from "they have to give out compensation because a nerf would be illegal."
It's not illegal. If it was illegal, in some real, actually-enforceable way, the game would not be available in your country. Spending money on mobile games is flushing it down the toilet.
@entrailbucket said: "They should give out compensation so players don't complain" is a million miles from "they have to give out compensation because a nerf would be illegal." It's not illegal. If it was illegal, in some real, actually-enforceable way, the game would not be available in your country. Spending money on mobile games is flushing it down the toilet.
@entrailbucket said: "They should give out compensation so players don't complain" is a million miles from "they have to give out compensation because a nerf would be illegal."
I didn't say nerfing was illegal.
I said there are rules and regulations surrounding purchases of digital goods, which would mean a refund is needed if they don't want to breach consumer rights. If a product's description is sustainably changed from what was advertised at the time of purchase - the consumer can't make a fit judgement or informed buying decision on whether the item bought was fit for its intended use. They were misled into buying something that no longer does what they thought it would.
They were misinformed at the point of purchase. I won't go as far as to say they bought it under false pretences, as I don't think it was a change made in bad faith on the company's behalf. But the product/service has changed. It no longer provides the benefit or purpose they bought it for.
Not giving a refund on purchases and denying consumer rights after changing how the item operates and functions is what would be illegal. Not the nerf itself. As long as they offer fair compensation or a refund - all is good. As that is all the law is saying - consumers are entitled to a refund if the digital good is no longer as described. If the function of the digital good has changed to the degree you'd no longer have purchased it initially - then you arguably have a claim.
"I spent over £100 on Chasm offers because he could revive, but he no longer does that and I didn't know they were nerfing him... I bought it in good faith they wouldn't change the way he worked x months later." That kind of thing. Bought something for a function or ability that is no longer offered.
They can make any changes to the game they like. But advertising and selling goods have to meet marketing and trading standard regulations. They have to operate within those standards when it comes to transactions. If they don't, they're opening themselves up to being swamped with trading standard ADR requests, chargeback disputes or small claims courts - if people are upset/informed enough to do those things.
They really, really don't.
Listen, don't misunderstand the argument here -- it is AWFUL that these consumer protections don't apply to games like this, that we have zero recourse if they were to, say, completely remove Chasm from the game, after people paid lots of money for him.
But that is, in fact, the case. You can file for a chargeback from whatever app store you used, and Google/Apple/Amazon will potentially refund you some or all of your money, but the developer will immediately sandbox your account for making that request. (I know people who have done this -- this is what happens 100% of the time).
If your country has a law against this, it is unenforceable against this game. You can try to file a complaint with whatever agency handles these types of things in your country. Nothing will come of it. You can try to file a lawsuit. Nothing will come of it. You are completely at their mercy. It's not good, but it indisputably is.
"If a product's description is sustainably changed from what was advertised at the time of purchase - the consumer can't make a fit judgement or informed buying decision on whether the item bought was fit for its intended use. They were misled into buying something that no longer does what they thought it would." And exactly what was that description? Like, with this character you will win always, i.e? I didn't read that description so I think it's fine. Still you are searching for compensations like the character was about to be useless. They are working on him possibly for not being the case. If you all had read my article you would be informed about the type of games you are playing and the type of regulation many people are asking.
@Blergh said: You can't sign away your consumer rights in a T&C. It'd be deemed an unfair contract.
@Blergh said:
You can't sign away your consumer rights in a T&C.
It'd be deemed an unfair contract.
You are signing it by accepting the contract terms before installing the App, or supposedly works this way. Nobody is waiting for you to come to a place and signing in legal form your contract, mostly because: Nobody is forcing you to adquire nothing. You are wasting your money on free will, and you can complaint only if you payed the money and didn't get the product. If you pay to get 500 spider 1* covers, it's on your own, and again you can make an excuse for Apple or Google refund you, and risking devs delete your account.
@entrailbucket said: They really, really don't. Listen, don't misunderstand the argument here -- it is AWFUL that these consumer protections don't apply to games like this, that we have zero recourse if they were to, say, completely remove Chasm from the game, after people paid lots of money for him. But that is, in fact, the case. You can file for a chargeback from whatever app store you used, and Google/Apple/Amazon will potentially refund you some or all of your money, but the developer will immediately sandbox your account for making that request. (I know people who have done this -- this is what happens 100% of the time). If your country has a law against this, it is unenforceable against this game. You can try to file a complaint with whatever agency handles these types of things in your country. Nothing will come of it. You can try to file a lawsuit. Nothing will come of it. You are completely at their mercy. It's not good, but it indisputably is.
@entrailbucket said: They really, really don't.
It's more that it is easier for both parties to settle things before it gets to court, rather than it is unenforceable. Less expensive. Less of a massive time waste over a stupid sum of money. It's just not worth it for either party.
I expect the majority of issues of this nature are settled with legitimate companies through polite messages to customer services pointing out this law exists.
The law doesn't have to get to court to work.
As for chargebacks, you don't want to open yourself up to them. For each approved chargeback, the company is fined. They lose more than the original purchase. It's a practice businesses want to avoid or have a solid way of disputing it - like in-game compensation.
And more to the point, chargebacks demonstrate the factor a judge or a courtroom isn't even needed to enforce consumer rights protections. The judgement can be made by a bank.
How is that not enforcement?
These chargebacks are processed through the app stores and not through your bank. You'd have to read the terms and conditions for the specific store to see what's allowed and what's not, but by making a purchase, you've agreed to those terms and conditions. The app stores put these processes in place after all the stories about children accidentally spending thousands on these games -- again, it's got nothing to do with any laws. (Also, if you request a chargeback from your app store, your MPQ account will be sandboxed immediately, whether you get money back or not.)
Your argument seems to have changed from "nerfing a character with no compensation is illegal" to "if players ask nicely, I'm sure the company would give them compensation." I agree with this -- most companies want to keep their customers happy. That fact has absolutely nothing to do with UK (or US, or EU, or anywhere else) consumer protection laws, which absolutely do not apply to this game or other games like this.
@entrailbucket said: These chargebacks are processed through the app stores and not through your bank. You'd have to read the terms and conditions for the specific store to see what's allowed and what's not, but by making a purchase, you've agreed to those terms and conditions. The app stores put these processes in place after all the stories about children accidentally spending thousands on these games -- again, it's got nothing to do with any laws. (Also, if you request a chargeback from your app store, your MPQ account will be sandboxed immediately, whether you get money back or not.) Your argument seems to have changed from "nerfing a character with no compensation is illegal" to "if players ask nicely, I'm sure the company would give them compensation." I agree with this -- most companies want to keep their customers happy. That fact has absolutely nothing to do with UK (or US, or EU, or anywhere else) consumer protection laws, which absolutely do not apply to this game or other games like this.
@entrailbucket said: These chargebacks are processed through the app stores and not through your bank. You'd have to read the terms and conditions for the specific store to see what's allowed and what's not, but by making a purchase, you've agreed to those terms and conditions. The app stores put these processes in place after all the stories about children accidentally spending thousands on these games -- again, it's got nothing to do with any laws. (Also, if you request a chargeback from your app store, your MPQ account will be sandboxed immediately, whether you get money back or not.)
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/how-do-i-use-chargeback-abZ2d4z3nT8q
Chargebacks are enforced by debit or credit card issuers.
I can phone a bank, and ask them for a chargeback on anything I purchased with my card if they haven't complied to UK trading standards. They can dispute it. And then it goes into a longer process.
It is consumer protections that are baked into the finance system in the UK. Nothing to do with app stores.
My argument hasn't changed. The law is so enforceable that companies don't deem it worth the risk in cost or effort for a court case. And people don't want the effort of chasing it to court. Which is why it hasn't really gone to court.
@Blergh I don't think the Consumer Protection Act functions in the manner you are framing it simply because it would not got that deep into defining a video game character. I think the best that you could hope for would be if you purchased a very specific item and not something generic like CP and that very specific item did not operate as advertised when invited to purchase, possibly then you had a case. You would have more chance being able to sue for his web healing being bugged than a nerf after a sustained period and as nothing is guaranteed with any of this digital content as things stand now, you have no chance of doing that.
So all invitations to treat Regarding Chasm and any forthcoming rebalance will be just that - if you would like to consider the swap option we are proposing then hit the sell button to accept
@Blergh said: @entrailbucket said: These chargebacks are processed through the app stores and not through your bank. You'd have to read the terms and conditions for the specific store to see what's allowed and what's not, but by making a purchase, you've agreed to those terms and conditions. The app stores put these processes in place after all the stories about children accidentally spending thousands on these games -- again, it's got nothing to do with any laws. (Also, if you request a chargeback from your app store, your MPQ account will be sandboxed immediately, whether you get money back or not.) Your argument seems to have changed from "nerfing a character with no compensation is illegal" to "if players ask nicely, I'm sure the company would give them compensation." I agree with this -- most companies want to keep their customers happy. That fact has absolutely nothing to do with UK (or US, or EU, or anywhere else) consumer protection laws, which absolutely do not apply to this game or other games like this. https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/how-do-i-use-chargeback-abZ2d4z3nT8q Chargebacks are enforced by debit or credit card issuers. I can phone a bank, and ask them for a chargeback on anything I purchased with my card if they haven't complied to UK trading standards. They can dispute it. And then it goes into a longer process. It is consumer protections that are baked into the finance system in the UK. Nothing to do with app stores. My argument hasn't changed. The law is so enforceable that companies don't deem it worth the risk in cost or effort for a court case. And people don't want the effort of chasing it to court. Which is why it hasn't really gone to court.
It works the same here in the USA. You don't even have to argue that it was unfair -- if you dispute a charge you will generally get some or all of your money back.
If you file the dispute through your bank you'll be permanently banned from making purchases in that app store. If you file the dispute through the app store you'll be permanently banned from the game (sandboxed).
@DAZ0273 said:@Blergh I don't think the Consumer Protection Act functions in the manner you are framing it simply because it would not got that deep into defining a video game character. I think the best that you could hope for would be if you purchased a very specific item and not something generic like CP and that very specific item did not operate as advertised when invited to purchase, possibly then you had a case. You would have more chance being able to sue for his web healing being bugged than a nerf after a sustained period and as nothing is guaranteed with any of this digital content as things stand now, you have no chance of doing that. So all invitations to treat Regarding Chasm and any forthcoming rebalance will be just that - if you would like to consider the swap option we are proposing then hit the sell button to accept
@DAZ0273 said:@Blergh I don't think the Consumer Protection Act functions in the manner you are framing it simply because it would not got that deep into defining a video game character. I think the best that you could hope for would be if you purchased a very specific item and not something generic like CP and that very specific item did not operate as advertised when invited to purchase, possibly then you had a case. You would have more chance being able to sue for his web healing being bugged than a nerf after a sustained period and as nothing is guaranteed with any of this digital content as things stand now, you have no chance of doing that.
Maybe.
It does define an in-app purchase as a digital good though. And if you buy an offer that is giving enough shards for a couple of covers, a token and some iso - it's reasonable to assume the good they are buying is the description written in the character's cover section. And any changes from that is a change in the digital good's description.
And as the item you've bought no longer functions the way it did when you purchased it.
@Blergh said: @DAZ0273 said:@Blergh I don't think the Consumer Protection Act functions in the manner you are framing it simply because it would not got that deep into defining a video game character. I think the best that you could hope for would be if you purchased a very specific item and not something generic like CP and that very specific item did not operate as advertised when invited to purchase, possibly then you had a case. You would have more chance being able to sue for his web healing being bugged than a nerf after a sustained period and as nothing is guaranteed with any of this digital content as things stand now, you have no chance of doing that. So all invitations to treat Regarding Chasm and any forthcoming rebalance will be just that - if you would like to consider the swap option we are proposing then hit the sell button to accept Maybe. It does define an in-app purchase as a digital good though. And if you buy an offer that is giving enough shards for a couple of covers, a token and some iso - it's reasonable to assume the good they are buying is the description written in the character's cover section. And any changes from that is a change in the digital good's description. And as the item you've bought no longer functions the way it did when you purchased it.
If that was to be the argument then the easiest thing in the world to do is simply to allow you to keep Chasm as purchased but then simply no longer allow him to be used in any PvE/PvP event by making them all 'Heroic' that included every character but Chasm.
After all, your purchase did not specify that you could use said character in any and all events because limited events have always been a thing. Now all events are limited.
Oh and we have a Chasm-II character who you can exchange your Chasm for at any time
KGB
@KGB said: @Blergh said: @DAZ0273 said:@Blergh I don't think the Consumer Protection Act functions in the manner you are framing it simply because it would not got that deep into defining a video game character. I think the best that you could hope for would be if you purchased a very specific item and not something generic like CP and that very specific item did not operate as advertised when invited to purchase, possibly then you had a case. You would have more chance being able to sue for his web healing being bugged than a nerf after a sustained period and as nothing is guaranteed with any of this digital content as things stand now, you have no chance of doing that. So all invitations to treat Regarding Chasm and any forthcoming rebalance will be just that - if you would like to consider the swap option we are proposing then hit the sell button to accept Maybe. It does define an in-app purchase as a digital good though. And if you buy an offer that is giving enough shards for a couple of covers, a token and some iso - it's reasonable to assume the good they are buying is the description written in the character's cover section. And any changes from that is a change in the digital good's description. And as the item you've bought no longer functions the way it did when you purchased it. If that was to be the argument then the easiest thing in the world to do is simply to allow you to keep Chasm as purchased but then simply no longer allow him to be used in any PvE/PvP event by making them all 'Heroic' that included every character but Chasm. After all, your purchase did not specify that you could use said character in any and all events because limited events have always been a thing. Now all events are limited. Oh and we have a Chasm-II character who you can exchange your Chasm for at any time KGB
@KGB said:
As they are most probably going to offer fair compensation as a goodwill gesture it is all basically an academic discussion.
I'm not even sure what the argument is anymore.
If you buy something with a credit card or a bank card, you can get your money back on it for any reason, or for no reason at all. That's not in dispute. The banks watch for abuse of this, but in general they'll grant whatever request you have.
That's got absolutely nothing to do with deceptive business practices or fraud or whatever -- if I buy some socks, then later decide I don't like them, I can file a chargeback and get my $5 back.
@entrailbucket said: I'm not even sure what the argument is anymore. If you buy something with a credit card or a bank card, you can get your money back on it for any reason, or for no reason at all. That's not in dispute. The banks watch for abuse of this, but in general they'll grant whatever request you have. That's got absolutely nothing to do with deceptive business practices or fraud or whatever -- if I buy some socks, then later decide I don't like them, I can file a chargeback and get my $5 back.
@entrailbucket said: I'm not even sure what the argument is anymore.
Well the crux of the argument in the court would revolve around this:-
"As described Digital content must match any description the trader gives to the consumer about it. Every contract to supply digital content has 'as described' as a contract term.
It does not matter if the consumer examines a trial version of the product before the contract is made and the final product matches the trial product or is even better; it is the description that is given to the original digital content that is important.
Certain digital products are upgraded over time. The digital content must continue to match the description but it can contain additional or enhanced features that are not part of that description.
Certain specific information about the main characteristics, functionality and compatibility of digital products must be given to consumers before they buy. Where information needs to be provided it is to be treated as a term of the contract and effectively becomes part of the product description. Please see 'Pre-contractual information' below for more information."
Source:https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/digital/digital-content
When you are purchasing an offer that provides covers, is the cover text like this:-
https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/87170/chasm-ben-reilly
is that the original content description or not. As the data you're specifically buying there is related to the character.
And does the change in the way that powers work to change the description of the product bought?
Daz is dubious. But I think it would be risky to let it get to court.
Do you think this is some sort of novel argument? Thousands of games like this have made tens of thousands of changes like this since the model became popular, and there have been zero cases where they've been successfully sued over it.
If you brought this sort of claim to a US court the judge would literally laugh at you and then order you to pay attorney fees for BCS/505.
If you brought this claim to a UK court, and you somehow managed to win, you'd get a completely unenforceable judgement in your favor.
Either way you're out whatever money you put up to file the suit, and you get nothing.
If you're talking about a chargeback through your bank then you can request (and get) that for any reason or no reason at all, without filing some sort of legal claim, and without the nonsense about business practices.
This is all strange. Since purchasing Chasm with real money like isn't a thing. He may have had offers for covers a few times since his release. So people with huge Chasms would have no real legal leg.
Buying his feeder to get covers for him has no legs at all. Since, you aren't offered Chasm for your purchase of another character, and it isn't advertised.
I think he had shards available for purchase 1 or 2 times? I don't even think he had one of the chained offer stores. There would be very little in actual damages, and I think before any sort of lawsuit materialized it would be settled.
I can't speak to other countries' systems, but courts in the US, in general, these days, do not have time for this nonsense and will not tolerate it.
Decades ago you saw stories about frivolous lawsuits that people filed over all sorts of ridiculous stuff, but there've been a LOT of reforms enacted since then, and courts now have tons of ways to either ignore or actually censure folks who make frivolous claims.
Courts are extremely busy (and generally massively overbooked) with real things that affect the real lives of real people -- if you try to sue a company because you're mad that they nerfed a digital superhero in your toilet game, that is not going to be a case that's worthy of their time, and they will not hesitate to take action against you for wasting their time.
I think dubious is a generous term to apply to my interpretation of this. I was mostly just having fun with the concept that a UK court would even have the slightest concept of how to quantify a claim like this. Crikey...let the business and the customer get on with it between them. If MPQ ever promises you that playing the game will never ever explode your phone and then does then we probably need to worry about what the T&C say coz they are going to be subject to various regulators world wide who are gonna work together to shut that down. Otherwise though not so much.
Strangely they nerfed jubilee and no-one made a fuss about it...
Chasm is really special to trigger people so much even before we know what change will happen
I'm also pleasantly surprised by the amount of law experts in this forum, way to go guys!