Price of Any Alliance Any race. Deceptive? (Give thoughts please)

Killerkier123

As people have been mentioning the price shows that its worth 11,700 crowns but as it has been pointed out that is its apparent value but never to be sold at 11700 and will instead continue to be sold at 2000 which is why there is no sale timer on it. This is fine as long as it doesn't increase further in my opinion and adding 100 crowns to the total to make it 2000 i don't think is as big a deal as some point are making it.

BUT MY MAIN POINT, why include the 11,700 crown value? it was never there before? i don't like making things an issue but i feel like this needs to be addressed, does or does this not count as deceptive marketing? to show a bigger price tag that what you're selling it for without the intention to sell it for the bigger price. if this counts as deceptive marketing then isn't that illegal in many areas?

Cpt_Teemo

Yes, by making it look like a huge sale is pretty fishy tbh and scummy as well exactly what that Fall of 76 video mentioned as well about there discounts

mjharper

Nah, you're reading too much into it. This isn't in any way illegal. It could be better communicated ('With a value of 11,700!'), and it might get into trouble if it goes on sale (how will they communicate that: 11,700 - 2,000 - 50% off!: 1,000?). But there's nothing deceptive, much less illegal, about stating clearly that this pack costs currently 2,000.

Cpt_Teemo

Actually is it deceiving if it shows a large discount while it wasn't supposed to be a discount in the first place, should only show 2k not 11k with a lined crossed out in it

Siohwenoeht

Wording / image could've been better, but nah, nothing to make a stink about. Pretty common practice in advertising.

david_m_18b16_ESO

mjharper wrote: »

Nah, you're reading too much into it. This isn't in any way illegal. It could be better communicated ('With a value of 11,700!'), and it might get into trouble if it goes on sale.

Its all legal sine they don't say its ON SALE.

But yes, It bullcrap to say an unlock worth X amonth I'd say. Since it cost 0.01$ to make for them.

david_m_18b16_ESO

Cpt_Teemo wrote: »

Actually is it deceiving if it shows a large discount while it wasn't supposed to be a discount in the first place, should only show 2k not 11k with a lined crossed out in it

They don't say its a discount, they use the therm WORTH. If they said it was a discount to something that never ever been sold at that price then yes, it would be judged deceiving practice in many country.

virtus753

david_m_18b16_ESO wrote: »

mjharper wrote: »

Nah, you're reading too much into it. This isn't in any way illegal. It could be better communicated ('With a value of 11,700!'), and it might get into trouble if it goes on sale.

Its all legal sine they don't say its ON SALE.

But yes, It bullcrap to say an unlock worth X amonth I'd say. Since it cost 0.01$ to make for them.

The use of the words “on sale” or lack thereof doesn’t define whether this runs afoul of advertising law. Anything that indicates a discount or lowering from a higher price does: for example, using words such as “bargain,” “deal,” or showing a higher price, crossing it out, and listing the percent off (i.e. thereotically “saved”).

Otherwise every company could get around the regulations just by avoiding the term “sale”.

The issue (at least in the US) comes down to whether the item was ever sold “regularly” at the “former”/“original” price. If not, then any representation of a discount is deceptive.

So the new pack obviously has not been sold regularly at any price, because it is new and has not been made available at all before. Is it acceptable to add up all of the former value of its original pieces and use that as an “original”/“former” price?

In this case there is actually no such thing, because they took apart one bundle and formed a new one. Parts of the old bundle were never sold individually (e.g. ARAA, the bantam guar), so there is no “original”/“former” price for them. Therefore the implication that this new bundle at any point cost 11,700 crowns is false.

They have claimed that their internal pricing adds up to that amount in value, but if these items have never regularly sold at their internal prices (such as ARAA itself, which could not be purchased individually for crowns), then they cannot just add up their internal value and use the cross-out + “% off” advertising to imply a discount. The price listed needs to be one at which these items sold “regularly.” I could see that argument being made for the alliance items (horse, dog, outfit, hat), but it simply can’t hold true for items never made available (and thus never regularly sold) individually.

EvilAutoTech

I believe the marketing department has either hired Ron Popeil or is channeling the ghost of Billy Mays:

If you buy right now this 11700 crown value will not cost you 11700 crowns, it will not cost you 10000 crowns, it won't even cost you 5000 crowns. For an undetermined time, you can get the whole bundle for only 2000 crowns. Operators are standing by. Don't miss out on this incredible deal.