@Blergh said: 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.
@Blergh said: 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.
By this definition, you could sue them for a buff also. Or just an alteration. Anything that is different, not just a nerf.
Do you not think the mobile game developers know this and, as @entrailbucket mentioned above, do you not think this has already been thought through by thousands of other mobile games and if it wasn't legal they wouldn't do it?
Obviously someone needs to take Broken Circle to Judge Judy and settle this debate once and for all.
This thread blows my mind. Yes I'm sure that one guy on an internet forum has discovered something that nobody else did, in the last ten years since mobile games with microtransactions became huge.
@Bad said:https://massivelyop.com/2020/04/13/player-who-claims-a-mobile-rpgs-gacha-mechanics-were-falsely-advertised-loses-court-case/ This case just confirms what I said many pages ago. Before installiing they ask you to agree with contract terms. Well, better said to read. The final button you must press is I agree. You can read it in more detail. If you don't agree, you won't be able to install the app. If you agree and play there is almost nothing you can claim on courts. And any harm you could argue it will be on you, as you are totally free to spend money or not.
Once again I will say this is oversimplified also. Governments will take action against this sort of thing if they consider it in the common good for people. Laws that exist to strike down illegal contract terms are enforceable but these companies are not stupid - they know what the law is in the regions they operate and they will stay within them.
But this is the difference we are talking about - individuals vs governments, it is not even in the same ballpark.> @Blergh said:
@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? 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.
@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.
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?
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.
No I'm not but that certainly would be a good use of the act! What I am saying is that when you obtained the item digitally, it was a picture on a screen that had animations and numbers that represented certain in game values. If the Developers change what the in game numbers mean in the game it is still a digital picture on a screen that has animations of some sort. There is no legal precedent that I know of under Consumer law that says changing those number values constitutes a breach of the law. You claim it is false advertising? How? You will still have a picture of a Marvel character on a screen. Nobody promised that picture would ever not do different things.
But this is going around in way too many circles now so I retire. Lol!
@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:
@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....
It hasn't been sold with a false description. It did exactly what it said it would do. Your argument is that any alteration to that EVER gives rise to a retrospective claim. Show us the legal precedent. Simples.
It's just turning around the same a lot more. There is no law restricting them to do what they want in their game(in Terms and Uses in your App explicitly says they can change things in the game with or without noticing you). And that's the screen I posted you renounce to claim any damage or payment. If you want to invalidate this contract terms that you already agreed, good luck. Everything is against you. Nobody would develop games in any other way, it would mean bankrupt. And listen to this: nobody has won a case vs a gacha game until now because of all this.
I have successfully sued Netflix many times when they removed content from their streaming service that was available on the day they took my subscription money but NOT afterwards. Thanks to this I am now a millionaire and Netflix no longer specifically provide any streaming services in my specific part of London as I so broke them with my legal rapier. You can find this case under:
Daz v Netflix, Inc [2023] EWCA Civ 69
I did mislead you all though as I clearly said two posts ago I would be shutting up about this, so I expect litigation incoming!
It's not really about nerfing a character in a game. Its whether about whether a product was missold due to a change in the description. If the item no longer matches the product description than it is no longer the item you bought. The digital content is no longer as described.Its core functionality has changed.
It's not really about nerfing a character in a game.
Its whether about whether a product was missold due to a change in the description.
If the item no longer matches the product description than it is no longer the item you bought. The digital content is no longer as described.Its core functionality has changed.
The grey area is whether you bought a Chasm cover or access to the powers with your purchase. You can keep the cover and it is a described - a level in a character. The stats move, the powers move, but as long as there's a power matrix that balances the relative strength of the character, the impact is largely situational. This can be shown by different builds of the character for different circumstances. In normal play. Proving the character is nerfed in all circumstances rather than rebalanced to bee more moderate in some circumstances is very difficult. And at the end of the day, you got a Chasm cover as promised.
Here is a trip down memory lane - who was here when the GDPR changes came in? Remember what happened? We all had to opt in or no longer be able to post on the site (or we could like that guy who went on a rampage deleting all his old posts). The reason for that is because D3Go as they were then CHANGED the terms & conditions of their website to comply with the law.
If 505 or BCS were in any danger of falling afoul of consumer law they would change their terms and conditions to adapt to this and the very next time we tried to play we would have to agree to them before we could access the game.
So if we have to sign up to new T&C before they do anything to Chasm then we will know the answer.
If anyone has ever wondered why real-life court cases take 3-4 years to settle (and even that is a conservative estimate), this thread is a great showcase why.
Everybody knows that Chasm is annoying character for opponents and he is good in defense, but not good enough in attack. The fair compensation is to do better him and 5* Spiderman in atack in order everyone should want to use them in pvp and pve like shang chi and mthor.
@Wolverbat said: Everybody knows that Chasm is annoying character for opponents and he is good in defense, but not good enough in attack. The fair compensation is to do better him and 5* Spiderman in atack in order everyone should want to use them in pvp and pve like shang chi and mthor.
I dunno dude,a character that tanks even colossus,stuns 99%of the roster before they even have time to retaliate,has a dmg passive that activates every turn,sucks ap to 0 most turns,heals and also comes back to life(with a cascade no less) Sounds pretty good on attack to me...
@entrailbucket said: 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.
@entrailbucket said: 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.
Tell that to Billy Mitchell and all his lawsuits against people like Karl Jobst
@Bad said: This is in your App. Privacy - Terms and uses: I'd say it's a bit hard to claim nothing having agreed, isn't it?
I just want to point out that they are free to put w/e they want in their contract and ask you to agree before you start playing, but that doesnt mean that you cant dispute any clause later and/or in closer inspection (if it ever went to court) a judge cant say that its an unfair clause and just write it off and make them compensate you for any loss or damage caused.
Thats standard practice, to put scarecrow terms to say they cant be held accoundable but if it goes against the consumer rights (and this only really matters if it goes to court or else nobody cares), they can be sued over it. Just like supermarkets or malls putting up posters saying they arent responsible for any damage/theft caused to vehicles parked in their parking lots, but they totally are (its a private space owned by them).
@ShionSinX said: Thats standard practice, to put scarecrow terms to say they cant be held accoundable but if it goes against the consumer rights (and this only really matters if it goes to court or else nobody cares), they can be sued over it. Just like supermarkets or malls putting up posters saying they arent responsible for any damage/theft caused to vehicles parked in their parking lots, but they totally are (its a private space owned by them).
@ShionSinX said:
It didn't work in here, as I already posted: https://massivelyop.com/2020/04/13/player-who-claims-a-mobile-rpgs-gacha-mechanics-were-falsely-advertised-loses-court-case/ So it mustn't be so easy to invalidate. Either way you have 2 troubles here: to invalidate contract terms and to prove your point. The first one could bind all other games
@Bad said: @ShionSinX said: Thats standard practice, to put scarecrow terms to say they cant be held accoundable but if it goes against the consumer rights (and this only really matters if it goes to court or else nobody cares), they can be sued over it. Just like supermarkets or malls putting up posters saying they arent responsible for any damage/theft caused to vehicles parked in their parking lots, but they totally are (its a private space owned by them). It didn't work in here, as I already posted: https://massivelyop.com/2020/04/13/player-who-claims-a-mobile-rpgs-gacha-mechanics-were-falsely-advertised-loses-court-case/ So it mustn't be so easy to invalidate. Either way you have 2 troubles here: to invalidate contract terms and to prove your point. The first one could bind all other games
@Bad said:
At the same time, unfair contract clauses have been decided against the defendant (who wrote said contract). Its all about being able to prove your case when the time comes, and the judge agreeing with you. Not saying its either easy or impossible.
@ShionSinX said: @Bad said: @ShionSinX said: Thats standard practice, to put scarecrow terms to say they cant be held accoundable but if it goes against the consumer rights (and this only really matters if it goes to court or else nobody cares), they can be sued over it. Just like supermarkets or malls putting up posters saying they arent responsible for any damage/theft caused to vehicles parked in their parking lots, but they totally are (its a private space owned by them). It didn't work in here, as I already posted: https://massivelyop.com/2020/04/13/player-who-claims-a-mobile-rpgs-gacha-mechanics-were-falsely-advertised-loses-court-case/ So it mustn't be so easy to invalidate. Either way you have 2 troubles here: to invalidate contract terms and to prove your point. The first one could bind all other games At the same time, unfair contract clauses have been decided against the defendant (who wrote said contract). Its all about being able to prove your case when the time comes, and the judge agreeing with you. Not saying its either easy or impossible.
You're arguing in very general terms, which is deceptive in this case.
Of course an unfair contract clause can be deemed void. If there was a clause in their T&Cs that said "by playing this game, you agree to pay 505 Games $1 million," then that would be unenforceable.
That does NOT mean that a lawsuit seeking compensation for a Chasm nerf would be successful, or would even be heard at all (hint: it wouldn't).
In the case I already posted, the claimer spent roughly 15k dollards, lose the job and loaned friends, and now he asked 30k dollards to the company arguing false advertising and that character never appearing when pulling: the judge never came to inspect the pulling system. They limited to see the contract terms and the claimer behavior and then they make their verdict, which was humiliating for the claimer. Translated to chasm, the judge never will come to see if the new skill is better or worse on offense or defense, simply they will see contract terms and claimer or company behavior and make the verdict more according to law. Because if the consumer is abide to a contract terms, they are free to quit the game or play it without spending nothing, but if they choose to spend a lot then the blame is on the consumer unless developers did something abusive (rarely it will be the case). So the one with more probabilities to lose the case vs a gacha game always will be the consumer for having an irresponsible behavior.
The best way to think about this, I would suggest, is that the game is a service. Access to that service is all that we contract for with its provider; there is no grant of any right, license, or any other sort of ownership interest in the underlying software (or any of its expressive elements). For example, you don't even "own" your own account -- you can use it or not use it, but you cannot sell it or otherwise alienate it in a way that results in a different person having control over it. Rather, you only have the right to access the service so long as it is being provided and you faithfully observe the terms of use to which you agreed -- as periodically amended.
Continued use of the service implies consent to any changes in the service and/or its terms of use and any objections are deemed waived if not timely raised in accordance with the EULA. As an example, every week 20 or so characters have changes applied to their underlying numbers in the form of boosts that cause fundamental changes to gameplay dynamics. Players are, mostly, fine with that. It's the nerfs that occasion demands for compensation and complaints of bait-and-switch tactics.
You didn't "buy a Chasm." You "bought" access to whatever Chasm the developers provide as part of the service generally. All aspects of the services' intricacies and expressive elements are exclusively within the developers' dominion and control and thus subject to their sole discretion. Absent harm to a consumer sounding in tort law, objections to the provision of the service and the terms of its use can be resolved within the in-game economy -- or in any other manner they deem appropriate -- by its proprietors on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
@entrailbucket said: Whether they're doing that or not, I have zero sympathy for players hurt by this, because they should have learned by now that they're not in control of the game -- the developers are.
@entrailbucket said:
Whether they're doing that or not, I have zero sympathy for players hurt by this, because they should have learned by now that they're not in control of the game -- the developers are.
Based on what I've seen over the last two years, the developers aren't in control of the game either.
The only control factor I've been able to see is the almighty dollar. Who is paying, and who isn't: those who either pay to get specific characters or those who pay to get overlooked for their 'playstyle'.
Chasm will be no different. The last few meta-shifts have been fixed by characters. Did you buy that fancy BRB? iHulk will fix that. Did you buy that fancy iHulk? SW will fix that. Did you buy that fancy SW? Chasm will fix that.
I disagree chasm really needs fix, anymore than any of those others needed fix. Environment has -always- been flooded with one 'better' team, and the money chase has been the next character that squishes the last one. Of course, that leads to power creep.
The money-chase problem is the "chasm fix" characters haven't done their job, so the spenders haven't needed to do the spending. Perhaps the power creep has finally come to an end!
More likely if the 'top' character gets changed, be it a nerf or a buff or a new release, we're going to see the next 'top' character as 80% of the matches in the game. Again. Like always. History has, and will, repeat. The money has to get chased.
@SnowcaTT said: @entrailbucket said: Whether they're doing that or not, I have zero sympathy for players hurt by this, because they should have learned by now that they're not in control of the game -- the developers are. Based on what I've seen over the last two years, the developers aren't in control of the game either. The only control factor I've been able to see is the almighty dollar. Who is paying, and who isn't: those who either pay to get specific characters or those who pay to get overlooked for their 'playstyle'. Chasm will be no different. The last few meta-shifts have been fixed by characters. Did you buy that fancy BRB? iHulk will fix that. Did you buy that fancy iHulk? SW will fix that. Did you buy that fancy SW? Chasm will fix that. I disagree chasm really needs fix, anymore than any of those others needed fix. Environment has -always- been flooded with one 'better' team, and the money chase has been the next character that squishes the last one. Of course, that leads to power creep. The money-chase problem is the "chasm fix" characters haven't done their job, so the spenders haven't needed to do the spending. Perhaps the power creep has finally come to an end! More likely if the 'top' character gets changed, be it a nerf or a buff or a new release, we're going to see the next 'top' character as 80% of the matches in the game. Again. Like always. History has, and will, repeat. The money has to get chased.
@SnowcaTT said:
Ihulk is supposed to counter BRB? I would have thought it's the other way around. Everytime I see brb team vs ihulk team, no matter which team is mine it's almost always the same result. Brb gets his cheap blue out, pretty soon ihulk aoe is doing -1 damage each turn with all the protect tiles out, soon after that there's not enough green tiles that aren't protect tiles for it to go off at all. I've always found ihulk to be more of a liability vs brb than helpful, especially if the other team also has kitty and she gets her red on the board.