Compensation for Chasm nerf discussion

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.

@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.

(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?

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.

@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:
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.

@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?

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.

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:
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.

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.

@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?