Maintenance for the week of December 15:
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
Australians - you ARE entitled to a refund because of b2p.
-
Roechacca✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭One things for sure . No one wins in the court of public opinion . Bookmark the thread an lets just have a update after the ruling .0 -
RedTalon✭✭✭✭✭
✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »Nocturnalis 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.
And pretty sure you continue to reinforce you understand that when you create an account, so both the box and agreeing to the terms sort of means its not missleading, but just a lot don't read,
Think mmos have had this problem in the past and why they put it on boxes at times and in the account creation.
Just my two crowns0 -
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »Nocturnalis 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.
Again, law trumps policies or agreements. I could stipulate in a TOS that you are agreeing to give your your first born child. However, the law would intercede because slavery is illegal. If a business practice is against the law, no TOS can overrule that law.v14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »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.
If he can find a lawyer that will agree with him and take the case: I would gleefully read the transcript, given the opportunity. That kind of crap can be comedy gold.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.
Yeah, I would think, with this payment model change would actually constitute added value. At least on the boxed purchase. I could see where the "30 days of free game time" might need a corrective sticker over it after the 17th, but for the rest...3 -
RedTalon✭✭✭✭✭
✭Hopefully lawyers aren't to pricey in the land down under or they do things differently there for such matters, just my final two thoughts on the matter.0 -
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭starkerealm wrote: »Nocturnalis 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.
Australian authorities can still file charges against the American company in US courts if they feel that they can prove that company breeched any US laws or agreements.v14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux2 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »Nocturnalis 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.
Again, law trumps policies or agreements. I could stipulate in a TOS that you are agreeing to give your your first born child. However, the law would intercede because slavery is illegal. If a business practice is against the law, no TOS can overrule that law.
But unless Australians haven't figured out how the internet works, an MMO changing over time would not meet the standards for a consumer complaint, especially as the consumer always has fair notice before major changes are coming (funnily enough, this is spelled out in the ToS). But I didn't reference the ToS in that post for a reason: they aren't relevant. Online games change, and ZO never misled consumers on that point.----
Murray?0 -
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭Hopefully lawyers aren't to pricey in the land down under or they do things differently there for such matters, just my final two thoughts on the matter.
Like in the US, most consumer protections are passed to the intermediates to enforce (i.e the credit cards and or banks involved). That is why in the US, it takes 2 minutes to file a dispute, and the credit card's lawyers will investigate and file for you. Nice, eh?v14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux0 -
TheBull✭✭✭✭✭
✭Please take it. Every last one of you night capping ^$^&$%@#!!!Killed by Sunshine 1vX How I see it.
Killed by Early Bright - Blood Flow - Magicka NB Build
Twitch - SunshineNB
Youtube - The Redguard0 -
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭starkerealm wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »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.
If he can find a lawyer that will agree with him and take the case: I would gleefully read the transcript, given the opportunity. That kind of crap can be comedy gold.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.
Yeah, I would think, with this payment model change would actually constitute added value. At least on the boxed purchase. I could see where the "30 days of free game time" might need a corrective sticker over it after the 17th, but for the rest...
No lawyers necessary. File the dispute with your bank or credit card. If you used only cash... that's tougher.v14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux0 -
eisberg✭✭✭Adding more features to the current subscription model, and also adding another payment model does not constitute a major problem. If a lawyer was actually stupid enough to get this to court, the Judge would probably laugh his bum off. "Seriously, the complaint is they added more features to a service, that is your complaint? Motion denied"0
-
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »Nocturnalis 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.
Again, law trumps policies or agreements. I could stipulate in a TOS that you are agreeing to give your your first born child. However, the law would intercede because slavery is illegal. If a business practice is against the law, no TOS can overrule that law.
But unless Australians haven't figured out how the internet works, an MMO changing over time would not meet the standards for a consumer complaint, especially as the consumer always has fair notice before major changes are coming (funnily enough, this is spelled out in the ToS). But I didn't reference the ToS in that post for a reason: they aren't relevant. Online games change, and ZO never misled consumers on that point.
Guess that would be up to a small claims court judge in Australia, eh?v14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux0 -
WraithAzraiel✭✭✭✭✭
✭How many threads do you have saying the exact same thing?
We get it, you're pissed. Have a cigarette and go for a walk or something.Shendell De'Gull - V14 Vampire Nightblade
Captain of the Black Howling
"There's no such thing as overkill..."
"No problem on the face of the Earth exists what can't be fixed with the proper application of enough duct tape and 550 cord."
P2PBetaTesters
#Tamriel_BETA_Team
#BETA_TESTER4LYF
DominionMasterRace
#GOAHEADTHEYGOTCANDY
#SEEMSLEGIT2 -
RedTalon✭✭✭✭✭
✭Hopefully lawyers aren't to pricey in the land down under or they do things differently there for such matters, just my final two thoughts on the matter.
Like in the US, most consumer protections are passed to the intermediates to enforce (i.e the credit cards and or banks involved). That is why in the US, it takes 2 minutes to file a dispute, and the credit card's lawyers will investigate and file for you. Nice, eh?
If you don't file a disupt within a certain amount of time, your money is gone and it comes down to suing or class action for cases like that.Edited by RedTalon on January 24, 2015 5:26AM0 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭starkerealm wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »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.
If he can find a lawyer that will agree with him and take the case: I would gleefully read the transcript, given the opportunity. That kind of crap can be comedy gold.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.
Yeah, I would think, with this payment model change would actually constitute added value. At least on the boxed purchase. I could see where the "30 days of free game time" might need a corrective sticker over it after the 17th, but for the rest...
No lawyers necessary. File the dispute with your bank or credit card. If you used only cash... that's tougher.
And when you do that, you open yourself up to legal action, as you are fraudulently claiming that you did not receive the goods/services you paid for.
Australians have legal recourse through their consumer protection laws, but those only create a legal means of challenging a company's return/replace/refund policies. They don't let you make fraudulent claims to your credit card company.Edited by nerevarine1138 on January 24, 2015 5:21AM----
Murray?3 -
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭nerevarine1138 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.nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 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:nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 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.
But claiming you received the product but would not had purchased had you known it was going to change in the way it did is NOT fraud. You may lose your dispute, but not fraud. Hence, no consequences on your part (minus no refund).
And at the end of the day, your 2 minute dispute report equates to far more time and money on ZOS's part defending and explaining itself to the credit card or bank.
v14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux1 -
RedTalon✭✭✭✭✭
✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »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.
If he can find a lawyer that will agree with him and take the case: I would gleefully read the transcript, given the opportunity. That kind of crap can be comedy gold.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.
Yeah, I would think, with this payment model change would actually constitute added value. At least on the boxed purchase. I could see where the "30 days of free game time" might need a corrective sticker over it after the 17th, but for the rest...
No lawyers necessary. File the dispute with your bank or credit card. If you used only cash... that's tougher.
And when you do that, you open yourself up to legal action, as you are fraudulently claiming that you did not receive the goods/services you paid for.
Australians have legal recourse through their consumer protection laws, but those only create a legal means of challenging a company's return/replace/refund policies. They don't let you make fraudulent claims to your credit card company.
Or your bank will laugh and say you shouldn't have bought the product if more then a few days have passed, plus take legal action forget that
But its not simple to do so yeah all that stuff can happen, more protection for corps and such in the U.S the reasons being mention here and there throughout the thread. Does sound like assuie law works a little differently
Edited by RedTalon on January 24, 2015 5:26AM0 -
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭Hopefully lawyers aren't to pricey in the land down under or they do things differently there for such matters, just my final two thoughts on the matter.
Like in the US, most consumer protections are passed to the intermediates to enforce (i.e the credit cards and or banks involved). That is why in the US, it takes 2 minutes to file a dispute, and the credit card's lawyers will investigate and file for you. Nice, eh?
If you don't file a disupt within a certain amount of time, your money is gone and it comes down to sewing or class action for cases like this.
Yup, in the US it is 60 days from the time of your bill. That would mean you could only ask for a refund on your last subscription renewal, at this point.Edited by Vis on January 24, 2015 5:25AMv14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux0 -
eisberg✭✭✭
But claiming you received the product but would not had purchased had you known it was going to change in the way it did is NOT fraud. You may lose your dispute, but not fraud. Hence, no consequences on your part (minus no refund).
And at the end of the day, your 2 minute dispute report equates to far more time and money on ZOS's part defending and explaining itself to the credit card or bank.
Good luck telling the credit card company that had you known they were going to add more features to the subscription and added another way to pay for the service, you would have not bought the game and claim that as a Major Problem. Chances are, the Credit Card company wouldn't even contact ZOS in the first place.
0 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 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.nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 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:nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 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.
But claiming you received the product but would not had purchased had you known it was going to change in the way it did is NOT fraud. You may lose your dispute, but not fraud. Hence, no consequences on your part (minus no refund).
And at the end of the day, your 2 minute dispute report equates to far more time and money on ZOS's part defending and explaining itself to the credit card or bank.
That claim is still fraud, because when you bought the product and used it, you indicated that you read and understood that the game was going to change over time. Your only defense at that point is illiteracy or stupidity, neither of which are particularly strong defenses against fraud charges.
Now, is it likely that ZO would take on one consumer over this? No. But if it were widespread enough, that would change things.----
Murray?3 -
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »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.
If he can find a lawyer that will agree with him and take the case: I would gleefully read the transcript, given the opportunity. That kind of crap can be comedy gold.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.
Yeah, I would think, with this payment model change would actually constitute added value. At least on the boxed purchase. I could see where the "30 days of free game time" might need a corrective sticker over it after the 17th, but for the rest...
No lawyers necessary. File the dispute with your bank or credit card. If you used only cash... that's tougher.
And when you do that, you open yourself up to legal action, as you are fraudulently claiming that you did not receive the goods/services you paid for.
Australians have legal recourse through their consumer protection laws, but those only create a legal means of challenging a company's return/replace/refund policies. They don't let you make fraudulent claims to your credit card company.
Obviously you just take it when you're ripped off, because you have never filed a dispute and have no idea what you're legally allowed to dispute. Go to your credit card account, hit dispute a charge, now look at the field under "reason." Gasp! There must be over a dozen! But what does that mean? You are allowed to dispute for a number of reasons, such as: double charges, service not as described, failure to complete service, and so much more. Again, you're welcome. I hope all this legal information is empowering you for the future.v14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux2 -
DeLindsay✭✭✭✭✭
✭Good to know the Murrikans aren't the only folks around with "Entitlement" attitudes
2 -
RedTalon✭✭✭✭✭
✭
But claiming you received the product but would not had purchased had you known it was going to change in the way it did is NOT fraud. You may lose your dispute, but not fraud. Hence, no consequences on your part (minus no refund).
And at the end of the day, your 2 minute dispute report equates to far more time and money on ZOS's part defending and explaining itself to the credit card or bank.
Good luck telling the credit card company that had you known they were going to add more features to the subscription and added another way to pay for the service, you would have not bought the game and claim that as a Major Problem. Chances are, the Credit Card company wouldn't even contact ZOS in the first place.
Or will say it will be sometime for them to get back to you, and hope you forget it after they say they will look into the matter, and if it is a debit card that is more a issue directly with your bank and that goes differently
0 -
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 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.nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 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:nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 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.
But claiming you received the product but would not had purchased had you known it was going to change in the way it did is NOT fraud. You may lose your dispute, but not fraud. Hence, no consequences on your part (minus no refund).
And at the end of the day, your 2 minute dispute report equates to far more time and money on ZOS's part defending and explaining itself to the credit card or bank.
That claim is still fraud, because when you bought the product and used it, you indicated that you read and understood that the game was going to change over time. Your only defense at that point is illiteracy or stupidity, neither of which are particularly strong defenses against fraud charges.
Now, is it likely that ZO would take on one consumer over this? No. But if it were widespread enough, that would change things.
Again, no fraud if I claim I did not know it would become b2p? Who did a year ago? A week ago? In fact, with all the past quotes from ZOS devs, they should be the ones concerned with fraud charges.v14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭starkerealm wrote: »Nocturnalis 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.
Australian authorities can still file charges against the American company in US courts if they feel that they can prove that company breeched any US laws or agreements.
Practically speaking, you have to light a fire that can be seen from space to get that kind of attention. The legal fees alone would outstrip any returned funds. Yeah, sorry, that's a "we could build a cyborg to mow the lawn" kind of solution.0 -
jeevin✭✭✭✭✭Hopefully lawyers aren't to pricey in the land down under or they do things differently there for such matters, just my final two thoughts on the matter.
Like in the US, most consumer protections are passed to the intermediates to enforce (i.e the credit cards and or banks involved). That is why in the US, it takes 2 minutes to file a dispute, and the credit card's lawyers will investigate and file for you. Nice, eh?
If you don't file a disupt within a certain amount of time, your money is gone and it comes down to sewing or class action for cases like this.
Yup, in the US it is 60 days from the time of your bill. That would mean you could only ask for a refund on your last subscription renewal, at this point.
I can't see how Zenimax would be liable for any more than that anyway. As a business it would be in their best interests to provide a refund on a sub purchased just before the btp announcement for those who request it. It's basic customer service and a gesture of good will.1 -
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭
But claiming you received the product but would not had purchased had you known it was going to change in the way it did is NOT fraud. You may lose your dispute, but not fraud. Hence, no consequences on your part (minus no refund).
And at the end of the day, your 2 minute dispute report equates to far more time and money on ZOS's part defending and explaining itself to the credit card or bank.
Good luck telling the credit card company that had you known they were going to add more features to the subscription and added another way to pay for the service, you would have not bought the game and claim that as a Major Problem. Chances are, the Credit Card company wouldn't even contact ZOS in the first place.
However, in the US the credit card companies are required to contact the vendor being disputed. Also, nowhere in the FCBA is their any stipulation or wording involving a "major problem." Don't know where you are getting that as it applies to U.S law.v14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux0 -
eisberg✭✭✭
Again, no fraud if I claim I did not know it would become b2p? Who did a year ago? A week ago? In fact, with all the past quotes from ZOS devs, they should be the ones concerned with fraud charges.
ZOS never said they would never add an additional way to pay for the service. Feel free to prove where they stated they would never add an additional model to pay for the service.
0 -
eisberg✭✭✭
But claiming you received the product but would not had purchased had you known it was going to change in the way it did is NOT fraud. You may lose your dispute, but not fraud. Hence, no consequences on your part (minus no refund).
And at the end of the day, your 2 minute dispute report equates to far more time and money on ZOS's part defending and explaining itself to the credit card or bank.
Good luck telling the credit card company that had you known they were going to add more features to the subscription and added another way to pay for the service, you would have not bought the game and claim that as a Major Problem. Chances are, the Credit Card company wouldn't even contact ZOS in the first place.
However, in the US the credit card companies are required to contact the vendor being disputed. Also, nowhere in the FCBA is their any stipulation or wording involving a "major problem." Don't know where you are getting that as it applies to U.S law.
This thread is about Australian Law, not US law.
0 -
RedTalon✭✭✭✭✭
✭The thing is even tho this involves money, this reminds me of the lawsuit matter that happen with Star Wars Galaxies when people wanted to keep it open and so on, and it didn't stand up in court cause of agreeing to the end user agreement
If I recall right.
EDit Sorry reading at the time, it did involve some money but still...but see the biggest issue is online games change and there is always a risk of it altering models, so if something is in the agreement or on the label no matter what words are say by people from the corp, it gets the corp off the hook cause it was an individual working for the corp..just how loopholes work. So would be an uphill battle and doubt its worth the time it would take and the fees.
Just my two crowns on the matter, not advice either way.
Edited by RedTalon on January 24, 2015 5:44AM0