So, are the early buyers of the new housing...

SinNoAria

Are they keeping their effectively free houses?

fleursnuit

As far as I could tell, there aren't even any new houses up. I can't find anything anywhere as to even WHEN they're being released.

Alastrine

Apparently they were up and there was at least one that was available for next to literally nothing... so they were taken down quickly to be repaired.
But I too am curious to know if the people that were fortunate enough to be on for that window get to keep the houses they "bought".

Faunter

Were all 3 available for purchase? Source?

Waffennacht

I'm gonna say yes

WaterBearer

Personally think they should be able to, at least some of us can get something out of the crown store at a bargain. Just wish I was one of them *cries*

ajm1946

no new houses available yet

VonNelson

The early bird catches the worm lmao

Elsonso

Easy to find the people who took advantage of PTS pricing. They haven't made a statement about it, but this cuts to the core of their being. If it happened, they will take care of it.

SinNoAria

I know I hesitated because I was like: This seems like an exploit, not sure if I want to jump on it.

If ZoS decides that it was ok though, next time I am jumping on it.

idk

SinNoAria wrote: »

Are they keeping their effectively free houses?

What free houses outside of the few small apartments?

DoctorESO

.

SinNoAria

idk wrote: »

SinNoAria wrote: »

Are they keeping their effectively free houses?

What free houses outside of the few small apartments?

For the first 5 or so minutes of the update, the new house was up for 1 crown.

DoctorESO wrote: »

Sounds like an exploit. Worthy of a ban?

Not so sure ban worthy, people might have assumed it was some sort of incentive to buy crowns. It only felt off if you knew that ZoS tends to not be so nice.

Harrdarrzarr

If you see a large "house" for sale for 1 crown, you are either a dickhead or a *** to buy it. Devs should be warned in such a case, not pull an evil/dumb grin and buy it.

Harrdarrzarr

If you see a large "house" for sale for 1 crown and you decide to buy it, you are either a dickhead or plain dumb to think it should be okay.

Svenja

I thought it was a visual bug that it only showed 1 crown and clicked on it because I wanted to see what would happen. I was quite surprised when it really only took 1 crown from my account.
I already opened two tickets about this incident by now as the guilt is killing me.
I don't even play on PC NA, I only have one level 3 character there.

SirCritical

This is the same when in RL you buy a wrongly priced product in any store. They offered it for 1 crown, you bought it. End of story. Deal is closed, complaining isn't allowed.

Ermiq

SirCritical wrote: »

This is the same when in RL you buy a wrongly priced product in any store. They offered it for 1 crown, you bought it. End of story. Deal is closed, complaining isn't allowed.

^This^

SinNoAria

@SirCritical @Eremith

SirCritical wrote: »

This is the same when in RL you buy a wrongly priced product in any store. They offered it for 1 crown, you bought it. End of story. Deal is closed, complaining isn't allowed.

Except not. There has been precedent for physical products being you bought it, you keep it, but for digital products, there has been precedent for the opposite.

Barnes and Noble Nook, Sony (Playstation Store purchases and account being locked out), Amazon Kindle, etc.

Even with physical products, there have been precedents for the opposite, though rarer and as far as I know, usually only applies to online purchases. This can happen even after you've paid, but before you've received the item in question. The reason being that if it was an accident, the store is not required to honor it. (They are required to honor it if it was on purpose).

Examples include Macy's, Amazon Sellers, Amazon, Walmart, etc.

(I'm not listing smaller, more local stores).

Basically, what happens is a decision of ZoS. Legally, they can cancel it, ban the people who bought, or even allow it.

Except as prohibited by applicable law and subject to the Statutory Obligations (as defined in Section 1), ZeniMax may restrict, suspend, or terminate Your access to some or any Services at any time.

...

In response to a violation of these Terms of Service, ZeniMax may issue You a warning, suspend or restrict certain features of Your Account (including, but not limited to, user names), selectively modify or remove or revoke Downloadable Content at an Account and/or device level, immediately terminate any and all Accounts that You have established and/or temporarily or permanently ban Your Account, device, and/or machine from accessing all or certain Services.

You agree not to use any Service to:

...

Promote, upload, transmit, encourage or take part in any activity involving hacking, cracking, phishing, taking advantage of exploits or cheats and/or distribution of counterfeit software and/or Virtual Currency or virtual items. In an effort to continuously improve the Services, You and other players discovering exploits, cheats, cracks or other inconsistencies are required to report them to ZeniMax;

Ermiq

SinNoAria wrote: »

@SirCritical @Eremith

SirCritical wrote: »

This is the same when in RL you buy a wrongly priced product in any store. They offered it for 1 crown, you bought it. End of story. Deal is closed, complaining isn't allowed.

Except not. There has been precedent for physical products being you bought it, you keep it, but for digital products, there has been precedent for the opposite.

Barnes and Noble Nook, Sony (Playstation Store purchases and account being locked out), Amazon Kindle, etc.

Even with physical products, there have been precedents for the opposite, though rarer and as far as I know, usually only applies to online purchases. This can happen even after you've paid, but before you've received the item in question. The reason being that if it was an accident, the store is not required to honor it. (They are required to honor it if it was on purpose).

Examples include Macy's, Amazon Sellers, Amazon, Walmart, etc.

(I'm not listing smaller, more local stores).

Basically, what happens is a decision of ZoS. Legally, they can cancel it, ban the people who bought, or even allow it.

Except as prohibited by applicable law and subject to the Statutory Obligations (as defined in Section 1), ZeniMax may restrict, suspend, or terminate Your access to some or any Services at any time.

...

In response to a violation of these Terms of Service, ZeniMax may issue You a warning, suspend or restrict certain features of Your Account (including, but not limited to, user names), selectively modify or remove or revoke Downloadable Content at an Account and/or device level, immediately terminate any and all Accounts that You have established and/or temporarily or permanently ban Your Account, device, and/or machine from accessing all or certain Services.

You agree not to use any Service to:

...

Promote, upload, transmit, encourage or take part in any activity involving hacking, cracking, phishing, taking advantage of exploits or cheats and/or distribution of counterfeit software and/or Virtual Currency or virtual items. In an effort to continuously improve the Services, You and other players discovering exploits, cheats, cracks or other inconsistencies are required to report them to ZeniMax;

We had a precedent with Daedric Thrones here in ESO not a long time ago.
Yes, I did read ToS (have read? had read?), and it clearly states that ZOS can do whatever they want with these extracheap items and all ESO accounts. But still I consider IRL rules for such conflicts more viable since I consider IRL stuff itself more valuable than digital stuff, because, you know, those're material things, a company cannot just copy/paste those things to sell more copies. It's just my IMHO though.

DoctorESO

.

Delphinia

We know that anything can happen in this game. For example, those skull thrones that were on "sale" at the luxury vendor a while ago... no one knew if it was actually free, or if it was a bug. Some of us bought only a couple to none, while others stockpiled with hundreds. People will take what they can get usually. Yet, no one knew at that time if they were "exploiting" or not, because there was no official word from ZOS at that time. Fortunately for all of those consumers, ZOS verified that yes, they were intentionally set to $0.00.

Now, with this, who is to know what ZOS intends? Yes, to some, it seems rational to believe it was a bug, but it seemed rational to also have believed that those thrones were also a bug at the time. As far as we knew, they had never done anything like that before. So, to some, this "sale" may seem rational as well.

Only ZOS knows what ZOS intends. We are not mind readers and able to know what they're thinking.

Those who saw a "house" for sale that ZOS set up on their crown store with 1 crown, may or may not have considered it to be a bug. If it was an error, then it was not a consumer error. Perhaps they thought it was another skull throne situation and decided not to miss out on a good deal this time. Who knows?

I don't believe ZOS would assume to know what everyone else's intentions are, just like we cannot assume to know their intentions when it comes to accepting items they are officially offering to their consumers. No one would ever buy anything and be fearful to click any buttons if this is the case.

I know that we naturally want our own share of things and if we don't get to be a "lucky" one then we want to take it out on those who are.
However, these "homes" were offered (just like the thrones were offered). If nothing was stated or made clear that it was a bug or "exploit" prior to the purchases, then I don't believe ZOS should ban anyone. Yes, they have a right to do so. But, I don't think it would be in their best interest.

Alastrine

The Daedric Thrones were nothing to ZoS. Luxury furnisher stuff is bought with ingame gold, not crowns. Can't compare that to this. Giving those to pple for a weekend was a feel good thing for us and didn't cost them anything.

Crowns are cash to ZoS. Completely different. Understandably, they like their cash.

RANKK7

Alastrine wrote: »

The Daedric Thrones were nothing to ZoS. Luxury furnisher stuff is bought with ingame gold, not crowns. Can't compare that to this. Giving those to pple for a weekend was a feel good thing for us and didn't cost them anything.

Crowns are cash to ZoS. Completely different. Understandably, they like their cash.

Yes, the two things are not even remotely to be compared.
Houses in the store are sold for real money and those products are incredibly expensive too.

DoctorESO

Delphinia wrote: »

We know that anything can happen in this game. For example, those skull thrones that were on "sale" at the luxury vendor a while ago... no one knew if it was actually free, or if it was a bug. Some of us bought only a couple to none, while others stockpiled with hundreds. People will take what they can get usually. Yet, no one knew at that time if they were "exploiting" or not, because there was no official word from ZOS at that time. Fortunately for all of those consumers, ZOS verified that yes, they were intentionally set to $0.00.

Now, with this, who is to know what ZOS intends? Yes, to some, it seems rational to believe it was a bug, but it seemed rational to also have believed that those thrones were also a bug at the time. As far as we knew, they had never done anything like that before. So, to some, this "sale" may seem rational as well.

Only ZOS knows what ZOS intends. We are not mind readers and able to know what they're thinking.

Those who saw a "house" for sale that ZOS set up on their crown store with 1 crown, may or may not have considered it to be a bug. If it was an error, then it was not a consumer error. Perhaps they thought it was another skull throne situation and decided not to miss out on a good deal this time. Who knows?

I don't believe ZOS would assume to know what everyone else's intentions are, just like we cannot assume to know their intentions when it comes to accepting items they are officially offering to their consumers. No one would ever buy anything and be fearful to click any buttons if this is the case.

I know that we naturally want our own share of things and if we don't get to be a "lucky" one then we want to take it out on those who are.
However, these "homes" were offered (just like the thrones were offered). If nothing was stated or made clear that it was a bug or "exploit" prior to the purchases, then I don't believe ZOS should ban anyone. Yes, they have a right to do so. But, I don't think it would be in their best interest.

Well said, @Delphinia.

kargen27

Harrdarrzarr wrote: »

If you see a large "house" for sale for 1 crown and you decide to buy it, you are either a dickhead or plain dumb to think it should be okay.

Or you think cool a sale I'm going to grab this, and then when they say it was a mistake you don't complain if they give your crown back and remove the house.

davey1107

As someone who took business law as part of my degree, let me correct some of the misinformation in this thread. If ZOS accidentally sold some houses for cheap, the sales are legitimate and the customers get to keep the items for that price.

Merchants have the responsibility for pricing their goods and controlling the checkout process. A price tag is considered a legal offer. However, the law usually allows merchants to refuse to make a sale if an item is mismarked.

In this case, however, the transaction was complete and cash changed hands...so the offer was accepted and the transaction codified. The merchant sold the items at a price they listed it, which was accepted by the customer, so the customers are entitled to the items. If you guys saw $1 crown houses, ya shoulda grabbed them. ZOS can’t legally reverse sales after payment is accepted.

As we used to say in law class, while conventional wisdom suggests “caveat emptor,” that was Rome, and under the modern U.S. U.C.C. laws, it’s more “caveat sellor,” because merchants are usually on the hook,when mistakes are made in the buying process.

SinNoAria

davey1107 wrote: »

As someone who took business law as part of my degree, let me correct some of the misinformation in this thread. If ZOS accidentally sold some houses for cheap, the sales are legitimate and the customers get to keep the items for that price.

Merchants have the responsibility for pricing their goods and controlling the checkout process. A price tag is considered a legal offer. However, the law usually allows merchants to refuse to make a sale if an item is mismarked.

In this case, however, the transaction was complete and cash changed hands...so the offer was accepted and the transaction codified. The merchant sold the items at a price they listed it, which was accepted by the customer, so the customers are entitled to the items. If you guys saw $1 crown houses, ya shoulda grabbed them. ZOS can’t legally reverse sales after payment is accepted.

As we used to say in law class, while conventional wisdom suggests “caveat emptor,” that was Rome, and under the modern U.S. U.C.C. laws, it’s more “caveat sellor,” because merchants are usually on the hook,when mistakes are made in the buying process.

This is only partially true. CROWNs are where cash changes hands, not the housing. The housing process is automatic and so those transactions could be cancelled. Even when cash changes hands, there are cases where if the item is mismarked, assuming that it was a mistake and the system is automated, the transaction can be cancelled. As I mentioned before, there are precedents, especially if the housing being up was a glitch in the first place.

The only arguable case would be if CROWNs were purchased specifically for the 1 crown housing, in which case, you'd deserve a refund on your CROWNs, but that was about a 5 minute window anyways so relatively easy to track.

Elsonso

kargen27 wrote: »

Harrdarrzarr wrote: »

If you see a large "house" for sale for 1 crown and you decide to buy it, you are either a dickhead or plain dumb to think it should be okay.

Or you think cool a sale I'm going to grab this, and then when they say it was a mistake you don't complain if they give your crown back and remove the house.

Crown Store sales usually make it pretty obvious that it is a limited time offer. A player would have to be pretty dense to look at a 1 Crown price, with no countdown or any indication that a special pricing event is happening, and think "cool a sale". What is more likely to happen is they think "cool, they screwed up, grab it now before they realize it".

Turelus

SinNoAria wrote: »

I know I hesitated because I was like: This seems like an exploit, not sure if I want to jump on it.

If ZoS decides that it was ok though, next time I am jumping on it.

Which is why they very likely won't.

It really comes down to the question of "can ZOS take a house away from an account?" we know they can do Gold/AP as they have in the past. Not known personally of them every removing collections items.

DoctorESO

davey1107 wrote: »

As someone who took business law as part of my degree, let me correct some of the misinformation in this thread. If ZOS accidentally sold some houses for cheap, the sales are legitimate and the customers get to keep the items for that price.

Merchants have the responsibility for pricing their goods and controlling the checkout process. A price tag is considered a legal offer. However, the law usually allows merchants to refuse to make a sale if an item is mismarked.

In this case, however, the transaction was complete and cash changed hands...so the offer was accepted and the transaction codified. The merchant sold the items at a price they listed it, which was accepted by the customer, so the customers are entitled to the items. If you guys saw $1 crown houses, ya shoulda grabbed them. ZOS can’t legally reverse sales after payment is accepted.

As we used to say in law class, while conventional wisdom suggests “caveat emptor,” that was Rome, and under the modern U.S. U.C.C. laws, it’s more “caveat sellor,” because merchants are usually on the hook,when mistakes are made in the buying process.

Did they talk at all about the practicalities? Good luck suing ZOS under this legal theory.

Also, I'm sure you know this, but for the benefit of those who do not, the U.S. UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) is not a law,per se. It is a model set of laws, and it is up to each U.S. state to adopt (if they so choose), in whole or in part, in modified or unmodified form, the model set of laws. We also need to consider the scope of the adopted UCC and whether in-game digital housing items are covered by the adopted UCC's definition of "goods."