Jubilee was doing stupid stuff. It was pointed out the day of her rework that she broke the game. She turned Colossus into one punch man. The quickly reigned it in, because the things she was doing was beyond absurd and the people who were using her pointed it out.
Dunno why she escaped notice, but "threatening to sue over a nerf/change" is nothing new here. It happened after Gambit, OML, x Force and 4thor, even the True Healing nerf (especially that one!). Someone threatened to sue them for changing the colors on the game board.
Strangely, nobody I know of has ever actually filed a lawsuit or even any sort of formal complaint...
@dianetics said: Jubilee was doing stupid stuff. It was pointed out the day of her rework that she broke the game. She turned Colossus into one punch man. The quickly reigned it in, because the things she was doing was beyond absurd and the people who were using her pointed it out.
swap jubilee for chasm, colossus for ihulk and your explanation applies...
@entrailbucket said: Dunno why she escaped notice, but "threatening to sue over a nerf/change" is nothing new here. It happened after Gambit, OML, x Force and 4thor, even the True Healing nerf (especially that one!). Someone threatened to sue them for changing the colors on the game board. Strangely, nobody I know of has ever actually filed a lawsuit or even any sort of formal complaint...
@entrailbucket said: Dunno why she escaped notice, but "threatening to sue over a nerf/change" is nothing new here. It happened after Gambit, OML, x Force and 4thor, even the True Healing nerf (especially that one!). Someone threatened to sue them for changing the colors on the game board.
well then people should stop beating a dead horse and stop hallucinating
@pepitedechocolat said: swap jubilee for chasm, colossus for ihulk and your explanation applies...
No, no it doesn't. She was way overtuned and there were 2 threads the day her buff dropped.
https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/88072/character-update-4-jubilee-uncanny-x-men-live-2-2/p1https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/999096#Comment_999096
Everyone was pointing out the insane match damage in these 2 threads. It was literally addressed the next day.
It's like i.e. someone wants to sue devs for rebalancing Iron Man (because they liked more the yellow power, because they liked more the small health pool he had before, for whatever weird reason), and claim that it wasn't in the description of the character when he bought it 6 years ago. What description? Digital goods don't have any description. By sending your credit card account and your password you are agreeing to that purchase. Dot. You can make an excuse to Google/Apple and they surely will refund you because they don't want any customer angry, but after that game's devs will take their logic actions. You can try to bring to court all you wanted but as I repeat gacha games can't be issued until now. It's needed to know what are gacha games and pc/ console video games, the later have all type of consumer rights. And this is the only truth, you can give all rounds around you want.
@entrailbucket said: 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.
@entrailbucket said: 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.
I am just pointing out what UK consumer law says.
They have an obligation to give people who purchase stuff a refund or reasonable compensation.
I doubt anyone would be sad enough, or they'd let it get anywhere near a court before settling it. But if they did, it'd be enforced. > @dianetics said:
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.
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.
Which goes back to my first post. They will offer compensation due to the consumer rights angle. In-game compensation will protect them from anyone angry enough to make a claim and demonstrate the advertisement around compensation was communicated in a very transparent to the player base. It offers them indemnity.
Instant dismal of disputes or small claims court procedure due to evidence of in-game compensation equal to the small refund claims. Saves them the expense and time of having to dispute claims that are most probably going to be less than their legal costs to defend.
No customer rights violation. Fair compensation was given. Screenshot.
Preemptively settled.
Businesses are generally well aware of how to cover themselves from the potential annoyances of disgruntled customers will throw at them.
There is no court. There is no obligation to refund nothing previously purchased. There is no UK consumer laws which could be applied here. This is a global game and obviously they know what they can do before some smart one threatening to issue them wanted a friendly agreement before courts. This game is just something that you downloaded in your phone. The transactions you order in it finish the rights to claim nothing in the exact time you get what you paid. If you think you are in a lawyers movie, it's nice and cool, but my advice is to not waste money trying to issue a gacha game.
@Bad said: There is no court. There is no obligation to refund nothing previously purchased. There is no UK consumer laws which could be applied here. This is a global game and obviously they know what they can do before some smart one threatening to issue them wanted a friendly agreement before courts. This game is just something that you downloaded in your phone. The transactions you order in it finish the rights to claim nothing in the exact time you get what you paid. If you think you are in a lawyers movie, it's nice and cool, but my advice is to not waste money trying to issue a gacha game.
The company that runs the game is registered with companies house in the UK. You can find there UK offices with a Google search.
And as I keep saying, offers are directly purchased.
Sony are awaiting trial in UK courts over the value of digital content purchased from their PSN store.
We know that some countries made the use of loot boxes in games illegal or restricted. Japan ruled in 2012 that "complete gatcha" game mechanics were illegal (whilst allowing other microtransactions to remain). Netherlands and Belgium further introduced regulation dealing specifically with loot boxes and games that use them require a special licence. The UK looked at this in 2020 but at that time deemed that loot boxes fall outside of The Gambling Act (2005) so new legislation would be required.
The UK Competition Commission blocked Microsoft purchasing Activision Blizzard based upon the digital market, not the console one and that decision has had worldwide consequences for Microsoft to date. The EU only accepted the merger based upon certain conditions and the US authorities have not as far as I know ruled but had concerns over digital market places.
So there is plenty of evidence that these sort of games/fully digital goods are on all sorts of different radars and might come under even greater scrutiny in the future.
I don't believe that @Blergh is correct in his application of Consumer Law on this particular point for various reasons of statutory interpretation but to say that Courts and Governments are "powerless" in the face of Gatcha and free mobile games is not accurate either.
I do agree that governments can take pro-consumer actions against these things if they choose to do so. When they do, though, you'll see these types of games either shut down or start cutting off those territories.
I remember hearing about the Netherlands and Belgium acts but I don't think anything actually came of them... yet, anyway. Governments move pretty slowly.
Agreed 100%.
@entrailbucket said: I do agree that governments can take pro-consumer actions against these things if they choose to do so. When they do, though, you'll see these types of games either shut down or start cutting off those territories. I remember hearing about the Netherlands and Belgium acts but I don't think anything actually came of them... yet, anyway. Governments move pretty slowly.
@entrailbucket said: I do agree that governments can take pro-consumer actions against these things if they choose to do so. When they do, though, you'll see these types of games either shut down or start cutting off those territories.
I think FIFA Ultimate team is...not available there? Something like that?
I think the main point here being the "gacha only" games being the main issue... I can't realistically see any nation's courts being tied up in minor issues like we'd have here. That said, I do think direct store buys of a nerfed character should be refundable. I've also given what I think is the EXACT way that a large-scale nerf like this should be handled previously; You make the character sellable for however much ISO and 13+champ levels tokens of an expired vault (I suppose it doesn't have to be expired, but it's the easiest way) with ONLY favorite 500 5* shards in it. Everyone gets to redistribute as they please that way, no harm no foul.
Gacha games are over scrutiny, yes. They have bad fame, yes. But it's like I say: nothing can be done. Look at this case, his son scamming 22k dollards. And the father can't recover all the money!https://gamerant.com/genshin-impact-dads-credit-card-thousands-of-dollars/ And now, if countries want to interfere, that's a paternalist country. Would you like that your country suddenly forbid you to play this game because they think it's better? Because some guys could be hooked up you will lost your years account.
Well regulators in the USA, UK and elsewhere have very recently started to look at online Sports gambling VERY closely. Sports gambling in the US has been worth $220 billion since 2018. If they make moves there (citing concerns about selling to young and vulnerable audiences) then expect online gaming to not be far behind I would think.
Guess we watch this space.
I think the act clearly outlines most of your objections.
_2. Key definitions
(9)“Digital content” means data which are produced and supplied in digital form._
What constitutes digital content is clearly defined. And I don't think you'd have trouble convincing a judge that a cover bought in an offer is data supplied in a digital format.
You also make a lot of objections around fit for purpose - which is only one of the statutory rights protected by the act. The most important one in this instance is the stuff around the content being as described.
_36 Digital content to be as described
(1)Every contract to supply digital content is to be treated as including a term that the digital content will match any description of it given by the trader to the consumer.
(2)Where the consumer examines a trial version before the contract is made, it is not sufficient that the digital content matches (or is better than) the trial version if the digital content does not also match any description of it given by the trader to the consumer.
(3)Any information that is provided by the trader about the digital content that is information mentioned in paragraph (a), (j) or (k) of Schedule 1 or paragraph (a), (v) or (w) of Schedule 2 (main characteristics, functionality and compatibility) to the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3134) is to be treated as included as a term of the contract.
(4)A change to any of that information, made before entering into the contract or later, is not effective unless expressly agreed between the consumer and the trader.
(5)See section 42 for a consumer's rights if the trader is in breach of a term that this section requires to be treated as included in a contract._
You go to the offers page. See a bundle. Click on the cover in the bundle. It will pop up with the character and power name. You press across and it will take you to an overview of the powers and character stats. The same will happen with shards, but there won't be a power name. I'd think it'd be hard for them to argue that this isn't the description or information for this digital content.
I think the power description is pretty central to the main characteristics and functionality of the digital content purchased if it is a cover.
_40 Quality, fitness and description of content supplied subject to modifications
(1)Where under a contract a trader supplies digital content to a consumer subject to the right of the trader or a third party to modify the digital content, the following provisions apply in relation to the digital content as modified as they apply in relation to the digital content as supplied under the contract—
(a)section 34 (quality);
(b)section 35 (fitness for a particular purpose);
(c)section 36 (description).
(2)Subsection (1)(c) does not prevent the trader from improving the features of, or adding new features to, the digital content, as long as—
(a)the digital content continues to match the description of it given by the trader to the consumer, and
(b)the digital content continues to conform to the information provided by the trader as mentioned in subsection (3) of section 36, subject to any change to that information that has been agreed upon in accordance with subsection (4) of that section.
(3)A claim on the grounds that digital content does not conform to a term described in any of the sections listed in subsection (1) as applied by that subsection is to be treated as arising at the time when the digital content was supplied under the contract and not the time when it is modified. _
If you modify how a cover's power operates is the description or information still the same? They're changing the functionality and main characteristics of the thing they sold. Unless I'm missing something, selling covers as digital content and then changing them later is a violation of a consumer's right to digital content is to be as described.
Source:https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/3
@Blergh said: If you modify how a cover's power operates is the description or information still the same? They're changing the functionality and main characteristics of the thing they sold. Unless I'm missing something, selling covers as digital content and then changing them later is a violation of a consumer's right to digital content is to be as described. Source:https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/3
@Blergh said:
That's just because it's your subjective interpretation of that tiresome wall of text. The game only is compeled to show the odds of the characters you are pulling, remember? What you are doing is pulling for a chance to get the character you want between 3 5s, and a hundred aprox 4 characters. And you get what you want. Even if you buy a chasm shard bundle, there are more things that you get (LL tokens, 4* characters shards, etc...) You can't say that because a power is changed you don't want all that. Did you see? All by pure logic, no need to disturb any judge. Now you can make some rounds more and bring a wall of laws more boring. It won't matter at all.
@Blergh said: I think the act clearly outlines most of your objections. _2. Key definitions (9)“Digital content” means data which are produced and supplied in digital form._ What constitutes digital content is clearly defined. And I don't think you'd have trouble convincing a judge that a cover bought in an offer is data supplied in a digital format. You also make a lot of objections around fit for purpose - which is only one of the statutory rights protected by the act. The most important one in this instance is the stuff around the content being as described. _36 Digital content to be as described (1)Every contract to supply digital content is to be treated as including a term that the digital content will match any description of it given by the trader to the consumer. (2)Where the consumer examines a trial version before the contract is made, it is not sufficient that the digital content matches (or is better than) the trial version if the digital content does not also match any description of it given by the trader to the consumer. (3)Any information that is provided by the trader about the digital content that is information mentioned in paragraph (a), (j) or (k) of Schedule 1 or paragraph (a), (v) or (w) of Schedule 2 (main characteristics, functionality and compatibility) to the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3134) is to be treated as included as a term of the contract. (4)A change to any of that information, made before entering into the contract or later, is not effective unless expressly agreed between the consumer and the trader. (5)See section 42 for a consumer's rights if the trader is in breach of a term that this section requires to be treated as included in a contract._ You go to the offers page. See a bundle. Click on the cover in the bundle. It will pop up with the character and power name. You press across and it will take you to an overview of the powers and character stats. The same will happen with shards, but there won't be a power name. I'd think it'd be hard for them to argue that this isn't the description or information for this digital content. I think the power description is pretty central to the main characteristics and functionality of the digital content purchased if it is a cover. _40 Quality, fitness and description of content supplied subject to modifications (1)Where under a contract a trader supplies digital content to a consumer subject to the right of the trader or a third party to modify the digital content, the following provisions apply in relation to the digital content as modified as they apply in relation to the digital content as supplied under the contract— (a)section 34 (quality); (b)section 35 (fitness for a particular purpose); (c)section 36 (description). (2)Subsection (1)(c) does not prevent the trader from improving the features of, or adding new features to, the digital content, as long as— (a)the digital content continues to match the description of it given by the trader to the consumer, and (b)the digital content continues to conform to the information provided by the trader as mentioned in subsection (3) of section 36, subject to any change to that information that has been agreed upon in accordance with subsection (4) of that section. (3)A claim on the grounds that digital content does not conform to a term described in any of the sections listed in subsection (1) as applied by that subsection is to be treated as arising at the time when the digital content was supplied under the contract and not the time when it is modified. _ If you modify how a cover's power operates is the description or information still the same? They're changing the functionality and main characteristics of the thing they sold. Unless I'm missing something, selling covers as digital content and then changing them later is a violation of a consumer's right to digital content is to be as described. Source:https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/3
@Blergh said: I think the act clearly outlines most of your objections.
Except they already put in Disclaimers, waivers and limitations in their contract language which exempts them from that unless you can persuade a Court that those terms are in breach of The Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977).
The Act itself does not define any of the terms you are claiming would be the basis of any case and that is because it would need statutory interpretation of this by a Judge setting precedent for future issues over this. The language of the law is not always dictionary based (it is a bit like MPQ in that way). For example description does not include any special provision or definition appertaining to specific cases. It could simply mean a product purchased in digital form and not physically. Until a judge or a subsequently amended stature clarifies this we don't actually know what the presiding legal definition is.
You can or course continue to interpret the statute itself in anyway you wish but that doesn't mean a Judge would agree with you. There are numerous examples of badly drafted statutes that required interpretation and explanation throughout English law and given that such cases move at glacial pace we might not have one yet as the legislation was only amended quite recently in legal time frames.
I'd argue the any in front of the description is pretty important when talking about that clause. Implies a lack of restriction.
Pretty sure any court case is a gamble on some level.
@Blergh said: I'd argue the any in front of the description is pretty important when talking about that clause. Implies a lack of restriction. Pretty sure any court case is a gamble on some level.
@Blergh said: I'd argue the any in front of the description is pretty important when talking about that clause. Implies a lack of restriction.
You can argue that all you like but it means nothing. A moneyclaimonline case would mean nothing in terms of defining these terms. We cannot claim strict liability on what you want the act to mean because you want the Act to be defined in your (and your legal teams) definition and 505 disagree with you. So you would have to go the High Court. However the High Court does not set binding precedent so that binds nobody to that Judges interpretation, the Court of Appeal does. So even if you win then 505 appeal that and look to have a precedent set in their favour. Then it goes to the Supreme Court if you can appeal THAT.
I have 25 years working in a section of the law (not this one) and can promise you that these sort of defining cases are not happening all the time and are quite rare.The fact that companies are continuing with this business model and not being struck down by UK courts suggests to me there is no legal precedent and interpretation of the legal precedent you claim is definitely applicable in this thread has no legally enforceable basis regardless of what the dictionary tells you these terms mean. If any such decision existed I can guarantee that a consortium of interested parties would be appealing any such case and attempting to use the UK legal concept of "Distinguishing" as an argument as to why it does not apply to them.
But I am no expert and would never claim the law cannot surprise me and even though I know HOW a Judge approaches statutory interpretation, no way would I pretend what conclusions they would come to on the very not defined wording we want applied to what a nerf to Chasm means to anybody.