Australians - you ARE entitled to a refund because of b2p.

technohic · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Guys, the op has made many good points. Perhaps asking for a refund for the original price of the game or used time would be too much. But as the Australian law is written, I see no reason why the op is not entitled to a refund on time remaining on his/her subscription. Good on Australia for having such protections. Shame on others who have attacked the op for presenting those protections.

Nothing has changed for this month that anyone is currently paying for.Maybe if you're already paid through March? Thats when it changes. But still; good luck.

The question would be whether you would have purchased your last subscription had you known it was going b2p. If the answer is no, then you should have the right to cancel today and be refunded on time remaining today. You just won't be able to play until March if you should choose to see the game as a none premium member.

Minute you would do that, they probably would ban your account from ever logging in free or no. So I wouldn't count on seeing the game as a non premium member.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

VisceralMonkey wrote: »

So this guy points out that under Australian law people there *might* be due a refund and he's attacked as a loser? WTF is wrong with you people? Seriously? Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's not, but he sure as hell has a good point and it's worth looking into. Some of you are almost psychotic in your behavior regarding this game.

The consumer protection laws in Australia are actually very stringent compared to the rest of the world, it's one of the reasons they started pulling stock off the shelves before the B2P announcement. Does it make sense? Honestly, I don't think anyone loses anything from this transition but that doesn't mean the letter of the law there says otherwise. This is the same kind of mob mentality that had people posting diatribes against anyone who suggested the game might be going B2P.

The OP is being called wrong because he's wrong. If he's going to make a terrible legal argument, he'd better be ready to have it attacked.

jeevin · January 2015

Nocturnalis wrote: »

ashlee17 wrote: »

The ACL came into effect on 1 January 2011 and provides consumers with basic rights in relation to consumer goods sold in Australia. These basic rights operate in addition to any express or voluntary warranties offered by businesses and cannot be excluded by a business’ terms and conditions of sale.

Are ESO subscription fees considered "sold in Australia"?

This Apple case is more likely a thing because Apple has many brick and mortar retail stores in Australia.

https://www.apple.com/au/retail/storelist/

Not really. Steam was recently and successfully taken to court by the ACCC for misleading consumers in the consumer's right to refunds on products sold via Steam. Steam has since been forced to make changes to their terms and conditions for Australian customers. Steam has no bricks and mortar stores here.

Edit; Speeling

Vis · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kraven wrote: »

So people are arguing about an informative post? Really? If it has no affect on you why disregard others? You come to say "You can't tell people that!" when truth is you can and should.

Several countries out side the US have consumer laws in place that trump TOS. If those players choose to stand up for themselves that is there right, under law. Arguing
"You can't do that! It might hurt ZOS!" Doesn't change basic facts.

Considering the game was sold while developers were quoted as saying "I'd rather shut the game down than go to F2P model."
Or just last summer saying:
"We have no plans at all, that I am aware of, to ever change the payment model."
The fact is this change has been known about for quite some time. Unless you think they completely designed the cash shop this week?

Selling the players the BS line "Everything is moving forward as expected! Have no fears all is well." is an absolute misrepresentation of the service paid for.

and if any consumers were dumb enough to follow up on this by contesting credit card charges, they'd be facing serious consequences.

Gave me a good laugh. What "serious consequences?" Be sure to do your research before answering that.

Vis · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Guys, the op has made many good points. Perhaps asking for a refund for the original price of the game or used time would be too much. But as the Australian law is written, I see no reason why the op is not entitled to a refund on time remaining on his/her subscription. Good on Australia for having such protections. Shame on others who have attacked the op for presenting those protections.

The thing is, the TOS even states that there could be different provisions for people of Australia.

In the US, it has already been well established that the law trumps any company policy.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kraven wrote: »

So people are arguing about an informative post? Really? If it has no affect on you why disregard others? You come to say "You can't tell people that!" when truth is you can and should.

Several countries out side the US have consumer laws in place that trump TOS. If those players choose to stand up for themselves that is there right, under law. Arguing
"You can't do that! It might hurt ZOS!" Doesn't change basic facts.

Considering the game was sold while developers were quoted as saying "I'd rather shut the game down than go to F2P model."
Or just last summer saying:
"We have no plans at all, that I am aware of, to ever change the payment model."
The fact is this change has been known about for quite some time. Unless you think they completely designed the cash shop this week?

Selling the players the BS line "Everything is moving forward as expected! Have no fears all is well." is an absolute misrepresentation of the service paid for.

and if any consumers were dumb enough to follow up on this by contesting credit card charges, they'd be facing serious consequences.

Gave me a good laugh. What "serious consequences?" Be sure to do your research before answering that.

When you contest a valid credit card charge, the card company can hit you with fines, marks on your credit report, and in some cases, criminal charges. Sounds serious to me.

Vis · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kraven wrote: »

So people are arguing about an informative post? Really? If it has no affect on you why disregard others? You come to say "You can't tell people that!" when truth is you can and should.

Several countries out side the US have consumer laws in place that trump TOS. If those players choose to stand up for themselves that is there right, under law. Arguing
"You can't do that! It might hurt ZOS!" Doesn't change basic facts.

Considering the game was sold while developers were quoted as saying "I'd rather shut the game down than go to F2P model."
Or just last summer saying:
"We have no plans at all, that I am aware of, to ever change the payment model."
The fact is this change has been known about for quite some time. Unless you think they completely designed the cash shop this week?

Selling the players the BS line "Everything is moving forward as expected! Have no fears all is well." is an absolute misrepresentation of the service paid for.

and if any consumers were dumb enough to follow up on this by contesting credit card charges, they'd be facing serious consequences.

Gave me a good laugh. What "serious consequences?" Be sure to do your research before answering that.

When you contest a valid credit card charge, the card company can hit you with fines, marks on your credit report, and in some cases, criminal charges. Sounds serious to me.

Link?

Because that is not true unless you falsify information in the report.

Vis · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

VisceralMonkey wrote: »

So this guy points out that under Australian law people there *might* be due a refund and he's attacked as a loser? WTF is wrong with you people? Seriously? Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's not, but he sure as hell has a good point and it's worth looking into. Some of you are almost psychotic in your behavior regarding this game.

The consumer protection laws in Australia are actually very stringent compared to the rest of the world, it's one of the reasons they started pulling stock off the shelves before the B2P announcement. Does it make sense? Honestly, I don't think anyone loses anything from this transition but that doesn't mean the letter of the law there says otherwise. This is the same kind of mob mentality that had people posting diatribes against anyone who suggested the game might be going B2P.

The OP is being called wrong because he's wrong. If he's going to make a terrible legal argument, he'd better be ready to have it attacked.

Just because you disagree, does not make it wrong. Nor does it give you the right to berate someone who attempts to use his protections.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kraven wrote: »

So people are arguing about an informative post? Really? If it has no affect on you why disregard others? You come to say "You can't tell people that!" when truth is you can and should.

Several countries out side the US have consumer laws in place that trump TOS. If those players choose to stand up for themselves that is there right, under law. Arguing
"You can't do that! It might hurt ZOS!" Doesn't change basic facts.

Considering the game was sold while developers were quoted as saying "I'd rather shut the game down than go to F2P model."
Or just last summer saying:
"We have no plans at all, that I am aware of, to ever change the payment model."
The fact is this change has been known about for quite some time. Unless you think they completely designed the cash shop this week?

Selling the players the BS line "Everything is moving forward as expected! Have no fears all is well." is an absolute misrepresentation of the service paid for.

and if any consumers were dumb enough to follow up on this by contesting credit card charges, they'd be facing serious consequences.

Gave me a good laugh. What "serious consequences?" Be sure to do your research before answering that.

When you contest a valid credit card charge, the card company can hit you with fines, marks on your credit report, and in some cases, criminal charges. Sounds serious to me.

Link?

Because that is not true unless you falsify information in the report.

It's called chargeback fraud. If you tell your credit card company that a charge was not valid, knowing that it was, that's fraud. Fraud is a crime.

Nocturnalis · January 2015

jeevin wrote: »

Nocturnalis wrote: »

ashlee17 wrote: »

The ACL came into effect on 1 January 2011 and provides consumers with basic rights in relation to consumer goods sold in Australia. These basic rights operate in addition to any express or voluntary warranties offered by businesses and cannot be excluded by a business’ terms and conditions of sale.

Are ESO subscription fees considered "sold in Australia"?

This Apple case is more likely a thing because Apple has many brick and mortar retail stores in Australia.

https://www.apple.com/au/retail/storelist/

Not really. Steam was recently and successfully taken to court by the ACCC for misleading consumers in the consumer's right to refunds on products sold via Steam. Steam has since been forced to make changes to their terms and conditions for Australian customers. Steam has no bricks and mortar stores here.

Edit; Speeling

Interesting, it would be nice here in the U.S. to get a refund on a steam game that continuously crashes on one's computer (I'm looking at you Fallout 3).

Is this just for faulty products? I suppose when ESO launched with all the server rollbacks and bugs, that could be a case for a refund for a faulty product. Not sure how Aussie law would see a game transition to b2p as faulty?

Vis · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kraven wrote: »

So people are arguing about an informative post? Really? If it has no affect on you why disregard others? You come to say "You can't tell people that!" when truth is you can and should.

Several countries out side the US have consumer laws in place that trump TOS. If those players choose to stand up for themselves that is there right, under law. Arguing
"You can't do that! It might hurt ZOS!" Doesn't change basic facts.

Considering the game was sold while developers were quoted as saying "I'd rather shut the game down than go to F2P model."
Or just last summer saying:
"We have no plans at all, that I am aware of, to ever change the payment model."
The fact is this change has been known about for quite some time. Unless you think they completely designed the cash shop this week?

Selling the players the BS line "Everything is moving forward as expected! Have no fears all is well." is an absolute misrepresentation of the service paid for.

and if any consumers were dumb enough to follow up on this by contesting credit card charges, they'd be facing serious consequences.

Gave me a good laugh. What "serious consequences?" Be sure to do your research before answering that.

When you contest a valid credit card charge, the card company can hit you with fines, marks on your credit report, and in some cases, criminal charges. Sounds serious to me.

Link?

Because that is not true unless you falsify information in the report.

It's called chargeback fraud. If you tell your credit card company that a charge was not valid, knowing that it was, that's fraud. Fraud is a crime.

Sigh, you must get easily pushed around. It's called the Fair Credit Billing Act. I am not charging you for that free education, you're welcome.

PS Google didn't find a link for you eh?

eisberg · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Guys, the op has made many good points. Perhaps asking for a refund for the original price of the game or used time would be too much. But as the Australian law is written, I see no reason why the op is not entitled to a refund on time remaining on his/her subscription. Good on Australia for having such protections. Shame on others who have attacked the op for presenting those protections.

The thing is, the TOS even states that there could be different provisions for people of Australia.

In the US, it has already been well established that the law trumps any company policy.

What I am saying is ZOS is already aware of Australian laws, hence why they put it in the TOS to state as such, and all someone needs to do is contact customer support and ask for any remaining time left on their account from March 17th and after. Prior to March 17th, there is no change to the new payment model, and they cannot get a refund for time prior to March 17th since that would considered as "changing your mind" and that is not protected by Australian laws.

They'll get a refund for any time from March 17th and after if the law really does protect Australian in this case.

Bouvin · January 2015

Yasha wrote: »

You are encouraging people to try and scam a refund after being able to enjoy playing the game (for however long they subbed)? Only a total scumbag would try to pull something like that, and there is no way you could get away with it anyway.

Scam a refund? How about ZOS scamming a player base by telling them the would stick with a subscription model or shut the game down because a subscription model was the only way they could sustain quality content.

Then come out today and say the content schedule for 2015 will slow down because they can't sustain it after B2P....

That's called bait and switch bro!

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

VisceralMonkey wrote: »

So this guy points out that under Australian law people there *might* be due a refund and he's attacked as a loser? WTF is wrong with you people? Seriously? Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's not, but he sure as hell has a good point and it's worth looking into. Some of you are almost psychotic in your behavior regarding this game.

The consumer protection laws in Australia are actually very stringent compared to the rest of the world, it's one of the reasons they started pulling stock off the shelves before the B2P announcement. Does it make sense? Honestly, I don't think anyone loses anything from this transition but that doesn't mean the letter of the law there says otherwise. This is the same kind of mob mentality that had people posting diatribes against anyone who suggested the game might be going B2P.

The OP is being called wrong because he's wrong. If he's going to make a terrible legal argument, he'd better be ready to have it attacked.

Just because you disagree, does not make it wrong. Nor does it give you the right to berate someone who attempts to use his protections.

He's wrong about the law. Anyone with a basic understanding of English can understand how he's wrong. He may believe that he is informing consumers of their rights, but he's only encouraging people to waste their time.

And everyone has the right to point out when someone is making a bad argument. That's the glory of forums. Posts like the OP's deserve to be criticized.

Vis · January 2015

Nocturnalis wrote: »

jeevin wrote: »

Nocturnalis wrote: »

ashlee17 wrote: »

The ACL came into effect on 1 January 2011 and provides consumers with basic rights in relation to consumer goods sold in Australia. These basic rights operate in addition to any express or voluntary warranties offered by businesses and cannot be excluded by a business’ terms and conditions of sale.

Are ESO subscription fees considered "sold in Australia"?

This Apple case is more likely a thing because Apple has many brick and mortar retail stores in Australia.

https://www.apple.com/au/retail/storelist/

Not really. Steam was recently and successfully taken to court by the ACCC for misleading consumers in the consumer's right to refunds on products sold via Steam. Steam has since been forced to make changes to their terms and conditions for Australian customers. Steam has no bricks and mortar stores here.

Edit; Speeling

Not sure how Aussie law would see a game transition to b2p as faulty?

Because an MMO is a service, it would fall under "not as described" part. Basic "bait and switch."

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kraven wrote: »

So people are arguing about an informative post? Really? If it has no affect on you why disregard others? You come to say "You can't tell people that!" when truth is you can and should.

Several countries out side the US have consumer laws in place that trump TOS. If those players choose to stand up for themselves that is there right, under law. Arguing
"You can't do that! It might hurt ZOS!" Doesn't change basic facts.

Considering the game was sold while developers were quoted as saying "I'd rather shut the game down than go to F2P model."
Or just last summer saying:
"We have no plans at all, that I am aware of, to ever change the payment model."
The fact is this change has been known about for quite some time. Unless you think they completely designed the cash shop this week?

Selling the players the BS line "Everything is moving forward as expected! Have no fears all is well." is an absolute misrepresentation of the service paid for.

and if any consumers were dumb enough to follow up on this by contesting credit card charges, they'd be facing serious consequences.

Gave me a good laugh. What "serious consequences?" Be sure to do your research before answering that.

When you contest a valid credit card charge, the card company can hit you with fines, marks on your credit report, and in some cases, criminal charges. Sounds serious to me.

Link?

Because that is not true unless you falsify information in the report.

It's called chargeback fraud. If you tell your credit card company that a charge was not valid, knowing that it was, that's fraud. Fraud is a crime.

Sigh, you must get easily pushed around. It's called the Fair Credit Billing Act. I am not charging you for that free education, you're welcome.

PS Google didn't find a link for you eh?

You're welcome to look up chargeback fraud for yourself, champ.

Vis · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kraven wrote: »

So people are arguing about an informative post? Really? If it has no affect on you why disregard others? You come to say "You can't tell people that!" when truth is you can and should.

Several countries out side the US have consumer laws in place that trump TOS. If those players choose to stand up for themselves that is there right, under law. Arguing
"You can't do that! It might hurt ZOS!" Doesn't change basic facts.

Considering the game was sold while developers were quoted as saying "I'd rather shut the game down than go to F2P model."
Or just last summer saying:
"We have no plans at all, that I am aware of, to ever change the payment model."
The fact is this change has been known about for quite some time. Unless you think they completely designed the cash shop this week?

Selling the players the BS line "Everything is moving forward as expected! Have no fears all is well." is an absolute misrepresentation of the service paid for.

and if any consumers were dumb enough to follow up on this by contesting credit card charges, they'd be facing serious consequences.

Gave me a good laugh. What "serious consequences?" Be sure to do your research before answering that.

When you contest a valid credit card charge, the card company can hit you with fines, marks on your credit report, and in some cases, criminal charges. Sounds serious to me.

Link?

Because that is not true unless you falsify information in the report.

It's called chargeback fraud. If you tell your credit card company that a charge was not valid, knowing that it was, that's fraud. Fraud is a crime.

Sigh, you must get easily pushed around. It's called the Fair Credit Billing Act. I am not charging you for that free education, you're welcome.

PS Google didn't find a link for you eh?

You're welcome to look up chargeback fraud for yourself, champ.

Yes, Google it. Notice something strange? The vendors are suing the credit cards and not the person? Shock, but why? Because of the protections afforded by the FCBA. Again, if you do NOT falsify anything in your dispute report, you CANNOT be charged with fraud. Just in case you missed the stipulation, I will quote myself from earlier:

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kraven wrote: »

So people are arguing about an informative post? Really? If it has no affect on you why disregard others? You come to say "You can't tell people that!" when truth is you can and should.

Several countries out side the US have consumer laws in place that trump TOS. If those players choose to stand up for themselves that is there right, under law. Arguing
"You can't do that! It might hurt ZOS!" Doesn't change basic facts.

Considering the game was sold while developers were quoted as saying "I'd rather shut the game down than go to F2P model."
Or just last summer saying:
"We have no plans at all, that I am aware of, to ever change the payment model."
The fact is this change has been known about for quite some time. Unless you think they completely designed the cash shop this week?

Selling the players the BS line "Everything is moving forward as expected! Have no fears all is well." is an absolute misrepresentation of the service paid for.

and if any consumers were dumb enough to follow up on this by contesting credit card charges, they'd be facing serious consequences.

Gave me a good laugh. What "serious consequences?" Be sure to do your research before answering that.

When you contest a valid credit card charge, the card company can hit you with fines, marks on your credit report, and in some cases, criminal charges. Sounds serious to me.

Link?

Because that is not true unless you falsify information in the report.

danno8 · January 2015

Every month you stayed subbed is another month you said "I am fine with the way things are."

Which is exactly what a judge would ask you to try and figure out why you paid for a service for so long that you did not enjoy or benefit from. They would then conclude that you got exactly what you paid for, otherwise you would have stopped.

The only time I could possibly see someone getting a refund for reasonably would be any sub time carried over past B2P launch due to the 3 or 6 month option. Any time before that? Forget it.

And a company developer saying "I don't think the payment model will ever change" is hardly legally binding in any way. That's just an opinion.

eisberg · January 2015

Bouvin wrote: »

Yasha wrote: »

You are encouraging people to try and scam a refund after being able to enjoy playing the game (for however long they subbed)? Only a total scumbag would try to pull something like that, and there is no way you could get away with it anyway.

Scam a refund? How about ZOS scamming a player base by telling them the would stick with a subscription model or shut the game down because a subscription model was the only way they could sustain quality content.

Then come out today and say the content schedule for 2015 will slow down because they can't sustain it after B2P....

That's called bait and switch bro!

Yet, they will still have a subscription model, they added an additional model as well. What they stated didn't exclude adding another payment model in addition to the current model. it also doesn't exclude adding more features to their existing subscription model.

Anyways, they gave plenty of warning. If Australian law actually in fact protects this kind of change, then anybody who currently has a subscription that rolls past March 17th, needs to contact customer support and get a refund for remaining time that would be left from March 17th.

Vis · January 2015

danno816_ESO wrote: »

Every month you stayed subbed is another month you said "I am fine with the way things are."

Which is exactly what a judge would ask you to try and figure out why you paid for a service for so long that you did not enjoy or benefit from. They would then conclude that you got exactly what you paid for, otherwise you would have stopped.

The only time I could possibly see someone getting a refund for reasonably would be any sub time carried over past B2P launch due to the 3 or 6 month option. Any time before that? Forget it.

And a company developer saying "I don't think the payment model will ever change" is hardly legally binding in any way. That's just an opinion.

Just to be fair, the op can still contest he would have never purchased the game had he known it would go b2p in a year.

Think of it liken this, you are receiving a 1 hour back massage and enjoy it. At the very last minute of the hour session, the male worker suddenly pours boiling oil all over you. Were you not enjoying it the first 59 minutes? Why did you not leave?

starkerealm · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

Guys, the op has made many good points.

Not that I saw.

Vis wrote: »

Perhaps asking for a refund for the original price of the game or used time would be too much. But as the Australian law is written, I see no reason why the op is not entitled to a refund on time remaining on his/her subscription.

The purpose of consumer protection laws... roughly, in this case, would be in the event of a "Bait and Switch." Yes?

I mean, there's also protections for things like defective products, and other situations. But, really, we're talking about Bait and Switch protections, here, right?

Where a company offers one thing for sale, and then replaces it with something else.

The problem is, and someone who's more familiar with Australian law than I am can correct me... though, they're probably not the ones saying that Aussies should issue charge backs...

For a bait and switch occurred, the business needs to have actually taken something away. Replaced something with an inferior or completely different product.

IE: You buy ESO, but instead the retailer gives you a GOTY Morrowind box. OR, the retailer gutted the box, and isn't giving you all of the internals.

It does not cover situations where you receive something extra. For example, you buy ESO, but receive the Explorer pack in addition to your purchase. This is not the kind of behavior that you usually would consider a bait and switch. You got what you paid for, the product wasn't defective, everything is above board, but, here's a neat bonus you didn't expect.

So, now you need to demonstrate that somehow, the removal of the subscription fee is a reduced value. That a game without a subscription fee is somehow inferior.

If a game like Guild Wars announced they were adding a mandatory subscription fee, I could possibly see where you'd have a bait and switch claim. But, with this, what ZoS has done is, arguably given you a bonus. They've agreed to wave a mandatory fee they told you about.

You have to demonstrate that ZoS took something away from you, while they can simultaneously claim you're now getting more value. The plus service has a laundry list of new bonuses, and you're no longer required to pay that as a part of your purchase.

Also, if I'm remembering correctly, each monthly subscription fee counts as a separate purchase. You can't claim that you were mislead in, say, December, because you paid $15 US for access to the service, and you received that.

Vis wrote: »

Good on Australia for having such protections. Shame on others who have attacked the op for presenting those protections.

The thing that's actually dangerous about this... and, I honestly suspect the OP knows this, is that invoking consumer protection laws fraudulently can have fairly dire consequences. And, yes, buying something, using it, and then saying, "nope, I've changed my mind, I'm going to pretend I'm getting screwed by this company over here," is fraudulent.

People who know more about Australian law than you find the entire thing very worrying. And, it's not about fans living in denial or whatever else you may believe. It's people who have a grasp of how the legal system actually works, saying, "this is really terrible advice." It may seem sound to you, but, honestly, don't follow it. The law is a subtle and vicious creature. Don't mess with it unless you really do know what you're doing.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

danno816_ESO wrote: »

Every month you stayed subbed is another month you said "I am fine with the way things are."

Which is exactly what a judge would ask you to try and figure out why you paid for a service for so long that you did not enjoy or benefit from. They would then conclude that you got exactly what you paid for, otherwise you would have stopped.

The only time I could possibly see someone getting a refund for reasonably would be any sub time carried over past B2P launch due to the 3 or 6 month option. Any time before that? Forget it.

And a company developer saying "I don't think the payment model will ever change" is hardly legally binding in any way. That's just an opinion.

Just to be fair, the op can still contest he would have never purchased the game had he known it would go b2p in a year.

Think of it liken this, you are receiving a 1 hour back massage and enjoy it. At the very last minute of the hour session, the male worker suddenly pours boiling oil all over you. Were you not enjoying it the first 59 minutes? Why did you not leave?

And here's horrible analogy number 9000 to take us home. Each month of the subscription is a distinct unit, and they are not affected in any way by the upcoming changes to the payment system.

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kraven wrote: »

So people are arguing about an informative post? Really? If it has no affect on you why disregard others? You come to say "You can't tell people that!" when truth is you can and should.

Several countries out side the US have consumer laws in place that trump TOS. If those players choose to stand up for themselves that is there right, under law. Arguing
"You can't do that! It might hurt ZOS!" Doesn't change basic facts.

Considering the game was sold while developers were quoted as saying "I'd rather shut the game down than go to F2P model."
Or just last summer saying:
"We have no plans at all, that I am aware of, to ever change the payment model."
The fact is this change has been known about for quite some time. Unless you think they completely designed the cash shop this week?

Selling the players the BS line "Everything is moving forward as expected! Have no fears all is well." is an absolute misrepresentation of the service paid for.

and if any consumers were dumb enough to follow up on this by contesting credit card charges, they'd be facing serious consequences.

Gave me a good laugh. What "serious consequences?" Be sure to do your research before answering that.

When you contest a valid credit card charge, the card company can hit you with fines, marks on your credit report, and in some cases, criminal charges. Sounds serious to me.

Link?

Because that is not true unless you falsify information in the report.

It's called chargeback fraud. If you tell your credit card company that a charge was not valid, knowing that it was, that's fraud. Fraud is a crime.

Sigh, you must get easily pushed around. It's called the Fair Credit Billing Act. I am not charging you for that free education, you're welcome.

PS Google didn't find a link for you eh?

You're welcome to look up chargeback fraud for yourself, champ.

Yes, Google it. Notice something strange? The vendors are suing the credit cards and not the person? Shock, but why? Because of the protections afforded by the FCBA. Again, if you do NOT falsify anything in your dispute report, you CANNOT be charged with fraud. Just in case you missed the stipulation, I will quote myself from earlier:

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kraven wrote: »

So people are arguing about an informative post? Really? If it has no affect on you why disregard others? You come to say "You can't tell people that!" when truth is you can and should.

Several countries out side the US have consumer laws in place that trump TOS. If those players choose to stand up for themselves that is there right, under law. Arguing
"You can't do that! It might hurt ZOS!" Doesn't change basic facts.

Considering the game was sold while developers were quoted as saying "I'd rather shut the game down than go to F2P model."
Or just last summer saying:
"We have no plans at all, that I am aware of, to ever change the payment model."
The fact is this change has been known about for quite some time. Unless you think they completely designed the cash shop this week?

Selling the players the BS line "Everything is moving forward as expected! Have no fears all is well." is an absolute misrepresentation of the service paid for.

and if any consumers were dumb enough to follow up on this by contesting credit card charges, they'd be facing serious consequences.

Gave me a good laugh. What "serious consequences?" Be sure to do your research before answering that.

When you contest a valid credit card charge, the card company can hit you with fines, marks on your credit report, and in some cases, criminal charges. Sounds serious to me.

Link?

Because that is not true unless you falsify information in the report.

Claiming that you didn't receive services or products when you are fully aware that you received those services or products is the very definition of a fraudulent claim.

RedTalon · January 2015

Doesn't the product and the terms of service everyone agrees to say things are prone to change somewhere and online experience may differ... why the law seems like it would entitled people to a refund the fact there are agreements when you create an account after buying this product sort of may be agreeing you know what you bought and did, and forefit that refund...will have to read the terms of service and so on again not assuie myself and sticking around

Just my two crowns on the matter, but their is a reason why eso countines to update there terms of service and user agreement every so often

Vis · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

VisceralMonkey wrote: »

So this guy points out that under Australian law people there *might* be due a refund and he's attacked as a loser? WTF is wrong with you people? Seriously? Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's not, but he sure as hell has a good point and it's worth looking into. Some of you are almost psychotic in your behavior regarding this game.

The consumer protection laws in Australia are actually very stringent compared to the rest of the world, it's one of the reasons they started pulling stock off the shelves before the B2P announcement. Does it make sense? Honestly, I don't think anyone loses anything from this transition but that doesn't mean the letter of the law there says otherwise. This is the same kind of mob mentality that had people posting diatribes against anyone who suggested the game might be going B2P.

The OP is being called wrong because he's wrong. If he's going to make a terrible legal argument, he'd better be ready to have it attacked.

Just because you disagree, does not make it wrong. Nor does it give you the right to berate someone who attempts to use his protections.

He's wrong about the law. Anyone with a basic understanding of English can understand how he's wrong. He may believe that he is informing consumers of their rights, but he's only encouraging people to waste their time.

And everyone has the right to point out when someone is making a bad argument. That's the glory of forums. Posts like the OP's deserve to be criticized.

If he is posting the text of the law itself, is that up to each reader as to its interpretation and not you. Unless, of course, you are a member of Australia's highest court.

starkerealm · January 2015

Nocturnalis wrote: »

ashlee17 wrote: »

The ACL came into effect on 1 January 2011 and provides consumers with basic rights in relation to consumer goods sold in Australia. These basic rights operate in addition to any express or voluntary warranties offered by businesses and cannot be excluded by a business’ terms and conditions of sale.

Are ESO subscription fees considered "sold in Australia"?

This Apple case is more likely a thing because Apple has many brick and mortar retail stores in Australia.

https://www.apple.com/au/retail/storelist/

If there's no personal jurisdiction, Australia can pretty much say whatever it wants, but it can't actually do anything about it.

Local retailers, sure. That might be part of why the Aussie stores were pulling copies. But, for them to get personal jurisdiction on an American company? I don't see how that happens.

jeevin · January 2015

Nocturnalis wrote: »

jeevin wrote: »

Nocturnalis wrote: »

ashlee17 wrote: »

The ACL came into effect on 1 January 2011 and provides consumers with basic rights in relation to consumer goods sold in Australia. These basic rights operate in addition to any express or voluntary warranties offered by businesses and cannot be excluded by a business’ terms and conditions of sale.

Are ESO subscription fees considered "sold in Australia"?

This Apple case is more likely a thing because Apple has many brick and mortar retail stores in Australia.

https://www.apple.com/au/retail/storelist/

Not really. Steam was recently and successfully taken to court by the ACCC for misleading consumers in the consumer's right to refunds on products sold via Steam. Steam has since been forced to make changes to their terms and conditions for Australian customers. Steam has no bricks and mortar stores here.

Edit; Speeling

Interesting, it would be nice here in the U.S. to get a refund on a steam game that continuously crashes on one's computer (I'm looking at you Fallout 3).

Is this just for faulty products? I suppose when ESO launched with all the server rollbacks and bugs, that could be a case for a refund for a faulty product. Not sure how Aussie law would see a game transition to b2p as faulty?

Refunds in Australia don't only apply to faulty products, they apply to products that break down before what one would consider a reasonable life of the product(wear and tear but varies per product, can be found on ACCC site I believe), products that don't function as advertised, products that don't represent what is on the label, damaged(DOA) and many more about misleading consumers, to which I believe the OP is referring.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

VisceralMonkey wrote: »

So this guy points out that under Australian law people there *might* be due a refund and he's attacked as a loser? WTF is wrong with you people? Seriously? Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's not, but he sure as hell has a good point and it's worth looking into. Some of you are almost psychotic in your behavior regarding this game.

The consumer protection laws in Australia are actually very stringent compared to the rest of the world, it's one of the reasons they started pulling stock off the shelves before the B2P announcement. Does it make sense? Honestly, I don't think anyone loses anything from this transition but that doesn't mean the letter of the law there says otherwise. This is the same kind of mob mentality that had people posting diatribes against anyone who suggested the game might be going B2P.

The OP is being called wrong because he's wrong. If he's going to make a terrible legal argument, he'd better be ready to have it attacked.

Just because you disagree, does not make it wrong. Nor does it give you the right to berate someone who attempts to use his protections.

He's wrong about the law. Anyone with a basic understanding of English can understand how he's wrong. He may believe that he is informing consumers of their rights, but he's only encouraging people to waste their time.

And everyone has the right to point out when someone is making a bad argument. That's the glory of forums. Posts like the OP's deserve to be criticized.

If he is posting the text of the law itself, is that not up to each reader as to its interpretation and not you. Unless, of course, you are a member of Australia's highest court.

And yet not being a member of Australia's highest court doesn't prevent me from reading the plain letter of the law and pointing out that the OP is woefully inaccurate in his reading of it. Weird, huh?

If he can find a lawyer who will agree with his interpretation and take the case, I will happily post a video of me eating my own hat. You can even decide the method of preparation.

eisberg · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

danno816_ESO wrote: »

Every month you stayed subbed is another month you said "I am fine with the way things are."

Which is exactly what a judge would ask you to try and figure out why you paid for a service for so long that you did not enjoy or benefit from. They would then conclude that you got exactly what you paid for, otherwise you would have stopped.

The only time I could possibly see someone getting a refund for reasonably would be any sub time carried over past B2P launch due to the 3 or 6 month option. Any time before that? Forget it.

And a company developer saying "I don't think the payment model will ever change" is hardly legally binding in any way. That's just an opinion.

Just to be fair, the op can still contest he would have never purchased the game had he known it would go b2p in a year.

Think of it liken this, you are receiving a 1 hour back massage and enjoy it. At the very last minute of the hour session, the male worker suddenly pours boiling oil all over you. Were you not enjoying it the first 59 minutes? Why did you not leave?

Already talked about this from my Australian lawyer acquaintance. he stated that a change in payment model would not be considered as a Major problem. Also, talked about how the payment model still exists, and all they are doing is adding in another way to pay, which again is not considered as a major problem. That law is pretty tight, and with the train of thought the OP is doing, would be same train of though as saying "Well they changed my sword from the color Red to Blue, I would not have bought the game if I known they would do that, I want a refund" No, that would not fly.

Also, you paid a fee for that 60 minute massage, having oil put on you, wouldn't entitle you to a refund on all the other 60 Minute massages you got prior to that incident.

Vis · January 2015

starkerealm wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Guys, the op has made many good points.

Not that I saw.

Vis wrote: »

Perhaps asking for a refund for the original price of the game or used time would be too much. But as the Australian law is written, I see no reason why the op is not entitled to a refund on time remaining on his/her subscription.

given you a bonus. They've agreed to wave a mandatory fee they told you about.

You have to demonstrate that ZoS took something away from you, while they can simultaneously claim you're now getting more value. The plus service has a laundry list of new bonuses, and you're no longer required to pay that as a part of your purchase.

Also, if I'm remembering correctly, each monthly subscription fee counts as a separate purchase. You can't claim that you were mislead in, say, December, because you paid $15 US for access to the service, and you received that.

Vis wrote: »

Good on Australia for having such protections. Shame on others who have attacked the op for presenting those protections.

The thing that's actually dangerous about this... and, I honestly suspect the OP knows this, is that invoking consumer protection laws fraudulently can have fairly dire consequences. And, yes, buying something, using it, and then saying, "nope, I've changed my mind, I'm going to pretend I'm getting screwed by this company over here," is fraudulent.

Again, if you do not falsify anything in your report, it up to the credit card /bank or the courts to rule if it is legimate. However, even if they rule against him, they cannot charge him with fraud unless he lied.

If I file a complaint under those laws, and am honest about why I am filing that complaint, I am protected retaliation because it is my legal right to file my complaint even if I lose because it was not legitimate.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

jeevin wrote: »

Nocturnalis wrote: »

jeevin wrote: »

Nocturnalis wrote: »

ashlee17 wrote: »

The ACL came into effect on 1 January 2011 and provides consumers with basic rights in relation to consumer goods sold in Australia. These basic rights operate in addition to any express or voluntary warranties offered by businesses and cannot be excluded by a business’ terms and conditions of sale.

Are ESO subscription fees considered "sold in Australia"?

This Apple case is more likely a thing because Apple has many brick and mortar retail stores in Australia.

https://www.apple.com/au/retail/storelist/

Not really. Steam was recently and successfully taken to court by the ACCC for misleading consumers in the consumer's right to refunds on products sold via Steam. Steam has since been forced to make changes to their terms and conditions for Australian customers. Steam has no bricks and mortar stores here.

Edit; Speeling

Interesting, it would be nice here in the U.S. to get a refund on a steam game that continuously crashes on one's computer (I'm looking at you Fallout 3).

Is this just for faulty products? I suppose when ESO launched with all the server rollbacks and bugs, that could be a case for a refund for a faulty product. Not sure how Aussie law would see a game transition to b2p as faulty?

Refunds in Australia don't only apply to faulty products, they apply to products that break down before what one would consider a reasonable life of the product(wear and tear but varies per product, can be found on ACCC site I believe), products that don't function as advertised, products that don't represent what is on the label, damaged(DOA) and many more about misleading consumers, to which I believe the OP is referring.

The "label" for any MMO makes it clear that things may change as the game is updated. The OP's failure to read doesn't mean he's entitled to restitution.