Characters in this, or any other game are not "products" and any law or court that defined them as such would be:
And then
If it is made for sale and marketed with advertisements, its a product.
And really, really thinking about item, isn't as described is most probably very well defined in distant selling regulations in case law through catalogues.
So, don't think it'd be that novel or ill-defined a concept in law. Especially in regards to consumer rights.
All that has really changed is that the digital goods description changed after a trial period, where it is no longer described as it was originally advertised. Creating a digital product that was missold because it was bought in good faith that it would continue to function as advertised and compensation would be provided if it didn't. But was later changed. Meaning it was missold and bought under false pretences.
I think there is enough case law around non-digital goods that would apply to that.
You don't have to understand nerfing or character powers.
It's just that you're trying to really narrowly define it.
It is a good or an item that was bought and sold on false information.
Ok, so let's take a fairly typical situation that's played out hundreds of times.
505 decides to end MPQ because it's no longer profitable for them. 505 is still there, but MPQ no longer exists. Under your logic, all money spent by all players must be refunded, because every product that anyone bought, ever, is no longer usable.
Among the hundreds of mobile games that have been shut down, have any given full, retroactive refunds?
@Blergh What you have been arguing is that:- (1) Any change in the characters abilities/appearance can be constituted as a legal basis for claims.
(2) Any customer can sue for claims or request for recovery based on (1).
Is that correct?
If that is correct, it means that changes (both nerf and buff) to jubilee, Iron man, etc would mean that BCS is subjected to claims recovery?
Even a UI change can be construed as a change…. Can I claim back the amount that I have spend on the game?
@entrailbucket said: Ok, so let's take a fairly typical situation that's played out hundreds of times. 505 decides to end MPQ because it's no longer profitable for them. 505 is still there, but MPQ no longer exists. Under your logic, all money spent by all players must be refunded, because every product that anyone bought, ever, is no longer usable. Among the hundreds of mobile games that have been shut down, have any given full, retroactive refunds?
@entrailbucket said: Ok, so let's take a fairly typical situation that's played out hundreds of times.
That is entirely different.
Where is the false advertising related to a product there?
What Daz is saying is if I buy a lamp and end up with a candle I wouldn't be able to claim compensation as I need to get the legal profession to define lamp.
@atomzed said:@Blergh What you have been arguing is that:- (1) Any change in the characters abilities/appearance can be constituted as a legal basis for claims. (2) Any customer can sue for claims or request for recovery based on (1). Is that correct? If that is correct, it means that changes (both nerf and buff) to jubilee, Iron man, etc would mean that BCS is subjected to claims recovery? Even a UI change can be construed as a change…. Can I claim back the amount that I have spend on the game?
@atomzed said:@Blergh What you have been arguing is that:- (1) Any change in the characters abilities/appearance can be constituted as a legal basis for claims.
No.
I am saying if they change the description for an item that was bought and paid for in an offer so it does something different than originally advertised, you are entitled to fair compensation due to the change in the item. In essence, it is no longer what you bought.
And you are protected against this under UK law and can seek a refund legally if it is not provided.
If the game ends, EVERY item that anyone has ever bought can no longer be used at all. Every single in-game purchase is "no longer what you bought" since the game no longer exists.
@entrailbucket said: If the game ends, EVERY item that anyone has ever bought can no longer be used at all. Every single in-game purchase is "no longer what you bought" since the game no longer exists.
But nothing has been missold with a false description....
@dianetics said: You aren't ever buying a single characters covers. You point is more or less invalid. Every time a 5 is available for purchase they are offered with additional resources. The actual value per cover is so obfuscated that you could never really know. There is no direct monetary value for single cover purchase in this game at all. You are circling around the actual issue which would be monetary damages. The way these things are sold you will have a very difficult time actually expressing the value of the purchase.
@dianetics said: You aren't ever buying a single characters covers. You point is more or less invalid.
Every time a 5 is available for purchase they are offered with additional resources. The actual value per cover is so obfuscated that you could never really know.
There is no direct monetary value for single cover purchase in this game at all.
You are circling around the actual issue which would be monetary damages. The way these things are sold you will have a very difficult time actually expressing the value of the purchase.
That is true.
The court would most probably lower the compensation in line with this. But it doesn't negate the fact something was marketed with false information that turned out to be incorrect.
@dianetics said: Ok, then you have to prove that at the time of purchase the marketing was indeed false. If there are changes made to marketing material prior to purchase, you will have trouble again. You have to prove that there was intentional deception in the marketing materials. The characters are not sold with their power descriptions. Again everything is so obfuscated (by design) that litigation becomes nigh impossible.
@dianetics said: Ok, then you have to prove that at the time of purchase the marketing was indeed false.
If there are changes made to marketing material prior to purchase, you will have trouble again.
You have to prove that there was intentional deception in the marketing materials. The characters are not sold with their power descriptions. Again everything is so obfuscated (by design) that litigation becomes nigh impossible.
I don't think it has to be intentional for them to be liable.
They are the ones changing the terms of the contract we entered. This money is for these goods.
As they are the ones enacting the change, it they that breaching the original terms.
Sorry, we are changing what your money was for. Liability for the change rests with them.
@Blergh said: @entrailbucket said: If the game ends, EVERY item that anyone has ever bought can no longer be used at all. Every single in-game purchase is "no longer what you bought" since the game no longer exists. But nothing has been missold with a false description....
@Blergh said:
So you're saying that if Chasm was just entirely deleted from the game, there's no compensation for that, but if he's altered somehow, you're due compensation by law?
@entrailbucket said: @Blergh said: @entrailbucket said: If the game ends, EVERY item that anyone has ever bought can no longer be used at all. Every single in-game purchase is "no longer what you bought" since the game no longer exists. But nothing has been missold with a false description.... So you're saying that if Chasm was just entirely deleted from the game, there's no compensation for that, but if he's altered somehow, you're due compensation by law?
@entrailbucket said:
Depends. Timeframe for buying exists. Think it is six years in legislation.
If they were removed from the game, and the game still exists. Yes.
I am not protected against a business closing due to a lack of profit. And the infringement on the consumers rests on the changing of description and information provided about digital content being changed or false.
It is not as described.
Closing a game doesn't mean I was missold anything. They also didn't breach the contract by changing the terms of the sale.
"The business" didn't close. I played a Final Fantasy mobile game for years that was run by Square Enix. They shut down the game for lack of profits. Square Enix continues to exist, and continues to make tons of money. No money was refunded, to anyone, anywhere.
If MPQ shuts down, 505 will continue to exist. They're a big company that publishes a lot of games. By your logic they'd be required to refund all purchases made in the last six years???
@entrailbucket said: "The business" didn't close. I played a Final Fantasy mobile game for years that was run by Square Enix. They shut down the game for lack of profits. Square Enix continues to exist, and continues to make tons of money. No money was refunded, to anyone, anywhere. @dianetics said: You are probably out of your depth in this conversation. If there was indeed anything to this at all, many much larger companies would have already been sued succesfully. In fact many people who tried to litigate against these types of things in many territories have already lost or had their cases dismissed. The truth is these companies structure their monetization to skirt around legislation. Look at Diablo Immortal. The speed at which legislation is written will always be behind the monetization efforts of the largest companies. The largest companies hire teams of lawyers to do just this, then the smaller companies fallow suit.
@entrailbucket said: "The business" didn't close. I played a Final Fantasy mobile game for years that was run by Square Enix. They shut down the game for lack of profits. Square Enix continues to exist, and continues to make tons of money. No money was refunded, to anyone, anywhere.
@dianetics said: You are probably out of your depth in this conversation.
If there was indeed anything to this at all, many much larger companies would have already been sued succesfully. In fact many people who tried to litigate against these types of things in many territories have already lost or had their cases dismissed.
The truth is these companies structure their monetization to skirt around legislation. Look at Diablo Immortal.
The speed at which legislation is written will always be behind the monetization efforts of the largest companies. The largest companies hire teams of lawyers to do just this, then the smaller companies fallow suit.
What companies don't offer some form of compensation?
@entrailbucket said: If MPQ shuts down, 505 will continue to exist. They're a big company that publishes a lot of games. By your logic they'd be required to refund all purchases made in the last six years???
Again - consumer rights are protecting against misselling using incorrect information. When a company does this you are entitled to compensation. They give this they've met the law's requirement. It's only fair compensation. Low money means this is easily met with in-game stuff.
Consumer rights doesn't protect me from them closing stuff down. Nothing was missold. And I expect there is a lot of in-game giveaways as thanks that'd be viewed as compensation but presented as goodwill gestures.
You're getting a lot of free stuff that has been assigned value. Its compensation.
The very big ones like EA or UbiSoft.
The bigger they are the less likely they compensate.
How is closing the game not "missold?" I was sold hero points because I could use them to buy stuff in the game. If the game doesn't exist anymore, I can't use them. This is the definition of missold.
@entrailbucket said: How is closing the game not "missold?" I was sold hero points because I could use them to buy stuff in the game. If the game doesn't exist anymore, I can't use them. This is the definition of missold.
You bought hero points. You received the hero points as listed on the original sales list.
I bought cover A* and received cover B- which wasn't on the original list of sale items at the point of sale. I have been given an item I didn't purchase.
Edit: I don't think what that is a game character and the nerf matters or has any relevance to what is going on here.
The simple facts are in this situation a person has agreed to the terms of a sale. And after the fact, the company has rewritten the terms of the sale without that person's consent.
They've taken their money in exchange for an item they've not agreed to buy. They've agreed to supply one thing. But given them something else.