Is Zenimax trampling our basic Consumer Rights?
-
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
Because you don't know my background, education, etc., but you love trolling people on the internet?
I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that you're not a lawyer and you don't know what you're talking about. I know that despite knowing almost nothing about you. I know only that you did not attend an American law school and that you do not practice law. Go ahead and guess at how I know that.
Because... you're just saying anything to sound smarter now?
(Do I get something if I guess right? I hope it's a cookie.)----
Murray?2 -
Kilandros✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
Because you don't know my background, education, etc., but you love trolling people on the internet?
I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that you're not a lawyer and you don't know what you're talking about. I know that despite knowing almost nothing about you. I know only that you did not attend an American law school and that you do not practice law. Go ahead and guess at how I know that.
Because... you're just saying anything to sound smarter now?
(Do I get something if I guess right? I hope it's a cookie.)
Try again.Invictus
Kilandros - Dragonknight / Grand Overlord
Deimos - Templar / Grand Warlord
Sias - Sorcerer / PrefectZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Short answer is DKs likely won't be seeing a ton of changes before we go live; this class is still quite powerful (as it should be being a tank), even after some of the adjustments we've made to other classes and abilities.
DK IS NOT JUST A TANK CLASS. #PLAYTHEWAYYOUWANT0 -
Nocturnalis✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
New forum posting requirement: a J.D.0 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
Because you don't know my background, education, etc., but you love trolling people on the internet?
I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that you're not a lawyer and you don't know what you're talking about. I know that despite knowing almost nothing about you. I know only that you did not attend an American law school and that you do not practice law. Go ahead and guess at how I know that.
Because... you're just saying anything to sound smarter now?
(Do I get something if I guess right? I hope it's a cookie.)
Try again.
Nah, I'm not a fan of guessing games. I prefer RPGs. Should we roleplay that you're someone who knows what they're talking about?----
Murray?1 -
Kilandros✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Nocturnalis wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
New forum posting requirement: a J.D.
Ironically the J.D.s are usually the guys not discussing the law on the internet.
The fact is the issues at play in this hypothetical lawsuit are actually quite complex. So complex, in fact, that most lawyers would need to do a lot of research to even begin discussing the issues intelligently.
The only rational advice given in this thread so far has been: "If you feel strongly, consult an attorney."
That's it. Everything else is noise.Invictus
Kilandros - Dragonknight / Grand Overlord
Deimos - Templar / Grand Warlord
Sias - Sorcerer / PrefectZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Short answer is DKs likely won't be seeing a ton of changes before we go live; this class is still quite powerful (as it should be being a tank), even after some of the adjustments we've made to other classes and abilities.
DK IS NOT JUST A TANK CLASS. #PLAYTHEWAYYOUWANT0 -
Wraithen✭✭✭The petty is strong in this thread...... I'd hat to be the poor guy that's shorts you a mcnugget1 -
Abr4hn✭✭Well, I'm so glad you people could elaborate on where I went wrong
Good to see there are still intelligent people around /sarcasm
But hey, atleast I know the community is no longer worth staying for in this game, so something positive came out of this post.
Yes.. and a positive for the rest of us as well (your impending absence).
Don't let the Internet hit you in the ass when you leave... Seeyabye!!!1 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nocturnalis wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
New forum posting requirement: a J.D.
Ironically the J.D.s are usually the guys not discussing the law on the internet.
The fact is the issues at play in this hypothetical lawsuit are actually quite complex. So complex, in fact, that most lawyers would need to do a lot of research to even begin discussing the issues intelligently.
The only rational advice given in this thread so far has been: "If you feel strongly, consult an attorney."
That's it. Everything else is noise.
And any attorney who has half a brain would offer the rational advice of, "Save your time and effort."----
Murray?1 -
Kilandros✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
New forum posting requirement: a J.D.
Ironically the J.D.s are usually the guys not discussing the law on the internet.
The fact is the issues at play in this hypothetical lawsuit are actually quite complex. So complex, in fact, that most lawyers would need to do a lot of research to even begin discussing the issues intelligently.
The only rational advice given in this thread so far has been: "If you feel strongly, consult an attorney."
That's it. Everything else is noise.
And any attorney who has half a brain would offer the rational advice of, "Save your time and effort."
Unfortunately, you lack both the education and the credentials to make that determination. That's why OP should consult a real lawyer--not a pretend internet lawyer--for real advice.
(Edit: I'm not saying you're uneducated, but you clearly aren't a lawyer / law-school graduate. Edited for clarity and to avoid unintended antagonism.)Edited by Kilandros on January 24, 2015 5:14PMInvictus
Kilandros - Dragonknight / Grand Overlord
Deimos - Templar / Grand Warlord
Sias - Sorcerer / PrefectZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Short answer is DKs likely won't be seeing a ton of changes before we go live; this class is still quite powerful (as it should be being a tank), even after some of the adjustments we've made to other classes and abilities.
DK IS NOT JUST A TANK CLASS. #PLAYTHEWAYYOUWANT0 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
New forum posting requirement: a J.D.
Ironically the J.D.s are usually the guys not discussing the law on the internet.
The fact is the issues at play in this hypothetical lawsuit are actually quite complex. So complex, in fact, that most lawyers would need to do a lot of research to even begin discussing the issues intelligently.
The only rational advice given in this thread so far has been: "If you feel strongly, consult an attorney."
That's it. Everything else is noise.
And any attorney who has half a brain would offer the rational advice of, "Save your time and effort."
Unfortunately, you lack both the education and the credentials to make that determination. That's why OP should consult a real lawyer--not a pretend internet lawyer--for real advice.
Unfortunately, you lack both knowledge of my credentials and a valid opinion on the OP, who is making wildly incorrect claims about consumer law. Any attorney would tell him to not waste his time.
Unless you'd like to offer him some different legal advice? Isn't that what you're hinting you have the ability to do?----
Murray?0 -
DDuke✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Well, I'm so glad you people could elaborate on where I went wrong
Good to see there are still intelligent people around /sarcasm
But hey, atleast I know the community is no longer worth staying for in this game, so something positive came out of this post.
Yes.. and a positive for the rest of us as well (your impending absence).
Don't let the Internet hit you in the ass when you leave... Seeyabye!!!
Yeah, enjoy your "Skyrim with friends".
The ultra-casual audience has done a fine job of ruining another game (and its community). Must be fun when you can just throw $$$ like an idiot instead of learning to play the game. Oh well...
Please don't reproduce, the world needs less of you to survive.
http://rt.com/usa/intelligence-stanford-years-fragile-531/0 -
DDuke✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
New forum posting requirement: a J.D.
Ironically the J.D.s are usually the guys not discussing the law on the internet.
The fact is the issues at play in this hypothetical lawsuit are actually quite complex. So complex, in fact, that most lawyers would need to do a lot of research to even begin discussing the issues intelligently.
The only rational advice given in this thread so far has been: "If you feel strongly, consult an attorney."
That's it. Everything else is noise.
And any attorney who has half a brain would offer the rational advice of, "Save your time and effort."
Unfortunately, you lack both the education and the credentials to make that determination. That's why OP should consult a real lawyer--not a pretend internet lawyer--for real advice.
Unfortunately, you lack both knowledge of my credentials and a valid opinion on the OP, who is making wildly incorrect claims about consumer law. Any attorney would tell him to not waste his time.
Unless you'd like to offer him some different legal advice? Isn't that what you're hinting you have the ability to do?
Please educate me, oh enlightened one.
How are any of my points actually incorrect?
They may not be legally bound to refund anything due to ToS, but what they are doing is against the morals & ethic behind the Consumer Rights.Edited by DDuke on January 24, 2015 5:18PM0 -
danno8✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Now for the rest of you: do you like eating crap, or would you like things to change?
I am all for fairness, and for people not getting ripped off, or fooled. But I also hate silly litigation, bluster and overstating ones injuries, or equating hurt feelings to grave injustices.
I simply do not see the switch to F2P as anything other than disappointing. Not the basis for refunds, litigation or any other "I've been wronged" arguments.
Like I said earlier, the only people who maybe should get a refund are those whose subscription extends past the March 17 rollout. And even then only for the amount of time after March
You don't like the service? Stop paying for it. You have a legal obligation to mitigate your own "damages".0 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
New forum posting requirement: a J.D.
Ironically the J.D.s are usually the guys not discussing the law on the internet.
The fact is the issues at play in this hypothetical lawsuit are actually quite complex. So complex, in fact, that most lawyers would need to do a lot of research to even begin discussing the issues intelligently.
The only rational advice given in this thread so far has been: "If you feel strongly, consult an attorney."
That's it. Everything else is noise.
And any attorney who has half a brain would offer the rational advice of, "Save your time and effort."
Unfortunately, you lack both the education and the credentials to make that determination. That's why OP should consult a real lawyer--not a pretend internet lawyer--for real advice.
Unfortunately, you lack both knowledge of my credentials and a valid opinion on the OP, who is making wildly incorrect claims about consumer law. Any attorney would tell him to not waste his time.
Unless you'd like to offer him some different legal advice? Isn't that what you're hinting you have the ability to do?
Please educate me, oh enlightened one.
How is any of my points actually incorrect?
Others have already explained, but here you go, tiger:
1. Your right to be heard is the right to be heard, not the right to be listened to.
2. Your right to be informed was not infringed on. You've received enough notification of the upcoming payment plan to cancel your subscription, if that's your choice. Your right to be informed does not extend to being informed of how a company spends its money. You paid for a subscription and received one.
3. Right to a healthy environment does not refer to how happy you feel playing a game or whether you feel that others are able to play a game with perks that you don't get. Capitalism allows people to purchase luxury items if they choose to spend money on it.
4. You have not lost your right to consumer redress. For starters, there's no redress needed, as you have no financial grievance. You can cancel your subscription if you don't want to continue paying one. But customer service is not required to change the game in order for you to have redress. That's not how it works.
But please, follow the other advice given and consult a lawyer. There's nothing people enjoy more than a good, long laugh.----
Murray?2 -
Kilandros✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
New forum posting requirement: a J.D.
Ironically the J.D.s are usually the guys not discussing the law on the internet.
The fact is the issues at play in this hypothetical lawsuit are actually quite complex. So complex, in fact, that most lawyers would need to do a lot of research to even begin discussing the issues intelligently.
The only rational advice given in this thread so far has been: "If you feel strongly, consult an attorney."
That's it. Everything else is noise.
And any attorney who has half a brain would offer the rational advice of, "Save your time and effort."
Unfortunately, you lack both the education and the credentials to make that determination. That's why OP should consult a real lawyer--not a pretend internet lawyer--for real advice.
Unfortunately, you lack both knowledge of my credentials and a valid opinion on the OP, who is making wildly incorrect claims about consumer law. Any attorney would tell him to not waste his time.
Unless you'd like to offer him some different legal advice? Isn't that what you're hinting you have the ability to do?
See my edit.
I do not provide legal advice. I do not presume to know what OP's attorney may or may not tell him. This thread has run its course--it is wild speculation that will not yield any satisfying result to anybody. I am trying to save you all some time and some energy by pointing out what is (should be) obvious to lawyers and non-lawyers alike: This thread is arguing for arguing's sake and nothing more.Invictus
Kilandros - Dragonknight / Grand Overlord
Deimos - Templar / Grand Warlord
Sias - Sorcerer / PrefectZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Short answer is DKs likely won't be seeing a ton of changes before we go live; this class is still quite powerful (as it should be being a tank), even after some of the adjustments we've made to other classes and abilities.
DK IS NOT JUST A TANK CLASS. #PLAYTHEWAYYOUWANT0 -
DDuke✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭danno816_ESO wrote: »Now for the rest of you: do you like eating crap, or would you like things to change?
I am all for fairness, and for people not getting ripped off, or fooled. But I also hate silly litigation, bluster and overstating ones injuries, or equating hurt feelings to grave injustices.
I simply do not see the switch to F2P as anything other than disappointing. Not the basis for refunds, litigation or any other "I've been wronged" arguments.
Like I said earlier, the only people who maybe should get a refund are those whose subscription extends past the March 17 rollout. And even then only for the amount of time after March
You don't like the service? Stop paying for it. You have a legal obligation to mitigate your own "damages".
This is subjective from person to person. If you spent thousands of hours playing the game, you're going to feel vastly different than a person who played only say, 200 hours.
Saying "oh, just stop paying then" isn't going to stop things like these from happening in the future, with this game or another games.
There will come time when content frequency slows down even more, time when they add even more enticing things to the cash shop.
More people will complain, but nothing will change.
This vicious cycle repeats one game after another.1 -
Carina✭✭Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
Please consider this post from a moral/ethical perspective, not legal one.
1962 U.S. President John F. Kennedy established four basic consumer rights:
1. The right to safety.
2. The right to choose.
3. The right to be heard.
4. The right to be informed.
In 1970, U.S. President Gerald Ford added: 5. The right to consumer education.
In time, the following rights were added: 6. The right to consumer redress.
7. The right to a healthy environment.
8. The right to basic needs.
In 1984 the INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONSUMERS UNIONS, now known as CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL, formally adopted this list of eight rights as their platform.
The Consumers Council of Canada has added: 9. The right to privacy.
This results in what we call the Eight Plus One.
I would argue our right to be heard has not been fulfilled.
No official polls have been made asking players' opinion on things, and overwhelming majority seems to be against the change to B2P.
I would argue our right to be informed has not been fulfilled.
When we were first introduced to things like Imperial City (back in last summer), and the concepts of Thieves Guild/Dark Brotherhood etc, we were not informed that these were to be saved up for later to sell as DLC. Zenimax created false expectations by withholding information.
We were not informed our money was being used to develop a Cash Shop (nor were our opinions about that asked).
I would argue our rights to a healthy environment will not be fulfilled.
When players spending more money get advantages over others (no matter how small).
I would argue our right to consumer redress will not be fulfilled.
No matter how much we voice our opinions here or to the customer service, things will not change.
Discuss.
This has got to be a troll post. The fact is...Zenimax is a business. The old model wasn't working. The new model is perfectly fine and has worked with highly successful games such as Guild Wars 2. You paid for a service, and got the service you paid for. Stop complaining. The sky isn't falling. This new change will reinvigorate the game and bring a lot of people back who were on the fence.
2 -
daemonios✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭As a lawyer, I find these recent threads about consumer law hilarious
I'm a trained lawyer under Portuguese law. I took consumer law in college and worked in a consumer conflicts meditation centre. As a lawyer I've advised on B2C issues, including in the field of e-commerce.
In my opinion, ZOS may have lied when they previously stated that they would never go B2P, but that doesn't do much for you as a consumer.
Firstly, as many have pointed out, this game isn't a mere product but rather a service, subject to the ToS you should have read and agreed to before you started playing. It's a long stretch to consider the clause under which ZOS may change the subscription model contrary to consumer protection laws.
Secondly, ESO being a service, our subscriptions ensured continued access to it. Good luck trying to get your subscription fees back when you already got the benefit for which you paid.
Thirdly, regarding the initial game cost, good luck proving that you would never ever have bought it if you knew that it would possibly, at some time in the future, go B2P. And even if you manage to prove that, good luck getting a refund if you've been using the service as it was advertised (i.e. subscription-based) until now.
In short, I'm against the change to B2P and encourage everyone to vote with your wallets and walk away if you're unhappy. I know I will if I ever get the feeling they're pushing me into spending (more) money in the crown store. But in the end, I don't think there's a case against ZOS under Portuguese and EU consumer laws, and I doubt US or Australian laws are any more protective of consumers.
Needless to say, this has been the expression of my personal opinion as a lawyer under Portuguese law and should not be regarded or relied upon in any way as legal advice or a statement of any rights or remedies you may have under any laws. This opinion carries no warranties, whether express or implied.5 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭As a lawyer, I find these recent threads about consumer law hilarious
I'm a trained lawyer under Portuguese law. I took consumer law in college and worked in a consumer conflicts meditation centre. As a lawyer I've advised on B2C issues, including in the field of e-commerce.
In my opinion, ZOS may have lied when they previously stated that they would never go B2P, but that doesn't do much for you as a consumer.
Firstly, as many have pointed out, this game isn't a mere product but rather a service, subject to the ToS you should have read and agreed to before you started playing. It's a long stretch to consider the clause under which ZOS may change the subscription model contrary to consumer protection laws.
Secondly, ESO being a service, our subscriptions ensured continued access to it. Good luck trying to get your subscription fees back when you already got the benefit for which you paid.
Thirdly, regarding the initial game cost, good luck proving that you would never ever have bought it if you knew that it would possibly, at some time in the future, go B2P. And even if you manage to prove that, good luck getting a refund if you've been using the service as it was advertised (i.e. subscription-based) until now.
In short, I'm against the change to B2P and encourage everyone to vote with your wallets and walk away if you're unhappy. I know I will if I ever get the feeling they're pushing me into spending (more) money in the crown store. But in the end, I don't think there's a case against ZOS under Portuguese and EU consumer laws, and I doubt US or Australian laws are any more protective of consumers.
Needless to say, this has been the expression of my personal opinion as a lawyer under Portuguese law and should not be regarded or relied upon in any way as legal advice or a statement of any rights or remedies you may have under any laws. This opinion carries no warranties, whether express or implied.
Thank you.
Your English is excellent, by the way.----
Murray?0 -
DDuke✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
New forum posting requirement: a J.D.
Ironically the J.D.s are usually the guys not discussing the law on the internet.
The fact is the issues at play in this hypothetical lawsuit are actually quite complex. So complex, in fact, that most lawyers would need to do a lot of research to even begin discussing the issues intelligently.
The only rational advice given in this thread so far has been: "If you feel strongly, consult an attorney."
That's it. Everything else is noise.
And any attorney who has half a brain would offer the rational advice of, "Save your time and effort."
Unfortunately, you lack both the education and the credentials to make that determination. That's why OP should consult a real lawyer--not a pretend internet lawyer--for real advice.
Unfortunately, you lack both knowledge of my credentials and a valid opinion on the OP, who is making wildly incorrect claims about consumer law. Any attorney would tell him to not waste his time.
Unless you'd like to offer him some different legal advice? Isn't that what you're hinting you have the ability to do?
Please educate me, oh enlightened one.
How is any of my points actually incorrect?
Others have already explained, but here you go, tiger:
1. Your right to be heard is the right to be heard, not the right to be listened to.
2. Your right to be informed was not infringed on. You've received enough notification of the upcoming payment plan to cancel your subscription, if that's your choice. Your right to be informed does not extend to being informed of how a company spends its money. You paid for a subscription and received one.
3. Right to a healthy environment does not refer to how happy you feel playing a game or whether you feel that others are able to play a game with perks that you don't get. Capitalism allows people to purchase luxury items if they choose to spend money on it.
4. You have not lost your right to consumer redress. For starters, there's no redress needed, as you have no financial grievance. You can cancel your subscription if you don't want to continue paying one. But customer service is not required to change the game in order for you to have redress. That's not how it works.
But please, follow the other advice given and consult a lawyer. There's nothing people enjoy more than a good, long laugh.
1. Only right I (and others) had was to be ignored. Same can be said of the majority of population. How many of the consumers actually wanted this change? Polls show majority against them, and it's not like ZO$ cared enough to make an official one & ask us.
2. No information came through about our subscriptions being used to create Cash Shop content & DLCs, instead of content for the current game. You do not determine how much we should know or not.
3. Healthy environment is a fair environment. An environment where other people get advantage for $$$ can be argued to be unhealthy. In real life, achieving more power & special benefits amounts to corruption, which is illegal in most countries (and I would certainly not call it "healthy").
4. I have financial grievance, I spent lots of money in a product that didn't end up like it was envisioned.
How is this different to listening to an architect who wants to build you a house, you pay for the construction & it all breaks down? Instead of even apologizing, the architect tells you to live in the rubbles.Edited by DDuke on January 24, 2015 5:31PM1 -
danno8✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭. But in the end, I don't think there's a case against ZOS under Portuguese and EU consumer laws, and I doubt US or Australian laws are any more protective of consumers.
Of course there isn't, which is why this thread, and others like it, and others still just like it when LotRO went F2P, and SWTOR went F2P never go anywhere legally.0 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
New forum posting requirement: a J.D.
Ironically the J.D.s are usually the guys not discussing the law on the internet.
The fact is the issues at play in this hypothetical lawsuit are actually quite complex. So complex, in fact, that most lawyers would need to do a lot of research to even begin discussing the issues intelligently.
The only rational advice given in this thread so far has been: "If you feel strongly, consult an attorney."
That's it. Everything else is noise.
And any attorney who has half a brain would offer the rational advice of, "Save your time and effort."
Unfortunately, you lack both the education and the credentials to make that determination. That's why OP should consult a real lawyer--not a pretend internet lawyer--for real advice.
Unfortunately, you lack both knowledge of my credentials and a valid opinion on the OP, who is making wildly incorrect claims about consumer law. Any attorney would tell him to not waste his time.
Unless you'd like to offer him some different legal advice? Isn't that what you're hinting you have the ability to do?
Please educate me, oh enlightened one.
How is any of my points actually incorrect?
Others have already explained, but here you go, tiger:
1. Your right to be heard is the right to be heard, not the right to be listened to.
2. Your right to be informed was not infringed on. You've received enough notification of the upcoming payment plan to cancel your subscription, if that's your choice. Your right to be informed does not extend to being informed of how a company spends its money. You paid for a subscription and received one.
3. Right to a healthy environment does not refer to how happy you feel playing a game or whether you feel that others are able to play a game with perks that you don't get. Capitalism allows people to purchase luxury items if they choose to spend money on it.
4. You have not lost your right to consumer redress. For starters, there's no redress needed, as you have no financial grievance. You can cancel your subscription if you don't want to continue paying one. But customer service is not required to change the game in order for you to have redress. That's not how it works.
But please, follow the other advice given and consult a lawyer. There's nothing people enjoy more than a good, long laugh.
1. Only right I had was to be ignored. Same can be said of the majority of population. How many of the consumers actually wanted this change? Polls show majority against them, and it's not like ZO$ cared enough to make an official one & ask us.
2. No information came through about our subscriptions being used to create Cash Shop content & DLCs, instead of content for the current game. You do not determine how much we should know or not.
3. Healthy environment is a fair environment. An environment where other people get advantage for $$$ can be argued to be unhealthy. In real life, achieving more power & special benefits amounts to corruption, which is illegal in most countries (and I would certainly not call it "healthy").
4. I have financial grievance, I spent lots of money in a product that didn't end up like it was envisioned.
How is this different to listening to an architect who wants to build you a house, you pay for the construction & it all breaks down? Instead of even apologizing, the architect tells you to live in the rubbles.
1. Doesn't matter. The right to be heard does not mean that the company needs to listen to you or make any kind of poll. You're being heard right now, on their official forum no less (that's also not part of your right to be heard).
2. Your subscription fee paid for your subscription. How a company spends your money is not something that you, as a consumer, are entitled to know. As an analogy, if you buy a burger from McDonald's, you don't get a refund because they don't spend the profits the way you'd like them to.
3. In real life, people getting special benefits for spending more money is called capitalism.
4. You spent lots of money on a product that was exactly as advertised when you spent that money on your access to it. If you weren't satisfied with your subscription, you had the right to cancel it before. You didn't, so you clearly were satisfied with the product. Not being satisfied about the future of the product doesn't entitle you to restitution for something you already asked for and received.----
Murray?0 -
Abr4hn✭✭Well, I'm so glad you people could elaborate on where I went wrong
Good to see there are still intelligent people around /sarcasm
But hey, atleast I know the community is no longer worth staying for in this game, so something positive came out of this post.
Yes.. and a positive for the rest of us as well (your impending absence).
Don't let the Internet hit you in the ass when you leave... Seeyabye!!!
Yeah, enjoy your "Skyrim with friends".
The ultra-casual audience has done a fine job of ruining another game (and its community). Must be fun when you can just throw $$$ like an idiot instead of learning to play the game. Oh well...
Please don't reproduce, the world needs less of you to survive.
http://rt.com/usa/intelligence-stanford-years-fragile-531/
Looks like someone "forgot" to take their meds today. When you do, you might also consider increasing the dosage - just sayin'. Seeyabye!!!0 -
DDuke✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭As a lawyer, I find these recent threads about consumer law hilarious
I'm a trained lawyer under Portuguese law. I took consumer law in college and worked in a consumer conflicts meditation centre. As a lawyer I've advised on B2C issues, including in the field of e-commerce.
In my opinion, ZOS may have lied when they previously stated that they would never go B2P, but that doesn't do much for you as a consumer.
Firstly, as many have pointed out, this game isn't a mere product but rather a service, subject to the ToS you should have read and agreed to before you started playing. It's a long stretch to consider the clause under which ZOS may change the subscription model contrary to consumer protection laws.
Secondly, ESO being a service, our subscriptions ensured continued access to it. Good luck trying to get your subscription fees back when you already got the benefit for which you paid.
Thirdly, regarding the initial game cost, good luck proving that you would never ever have bought it if you knew that it would possibly, at some time in the future, go B2P. And even if you manage to prove that, good luck getting a refund if you've been using the service as it was advertised (i.e. subscription-based) until now.
In short, I'm against the change to B2P and encourage everyone to vote with your wallets and walk away if you're unhappy. I know I will if I ever get the feeling they're pushing me into spending (more) money in the crown store. But in the end, I don't think there's a case against ZOS under Portuguese and EU consumer laws, and I doubt US or Australian laws are any more protective of consumers.
Needless to say, this has been the expression of my personal opinion as a lawyer under Portuguese law and should not be regarded or relied upon in any way as legal advice or a statement of any rights or remedies you may have under any laws. This opinion carries no warranties, whether express or implied.
Yes, and yet again I'm not looking at things from legal perspective, but moral/ethical one.
I'm asking people whether this kind of behaviour should be condoned, when it's simply wrong (but not legally), and whether the MMO industry could use regulations or laws to make sure things like this do not happen again.0 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭As a lawyer, I find these recent threads about consumer law hilarious
I'm a trained lawyer under Portuguese law. I took consumer law in college and worked in a consumer conflicts meditation centre. As a lawyer I've advised on B2C issues, including in the field of e-commerce.
In my opinion, ZOS may have lied when they previously stated that they would never go B2P, but that doesn't do much for you as a consumer.
Firstly, as many have pointed out, this game isn't a mere product but rather a service, subject to the ToS you should have read and agreed to before you started playing. It's a long stretch to consider the clause under which ZOS may change the subscription model contrary to consumer protection laws.
Secondly, ESO being a service, our subscriptions ensured continued access to it. Good luck trying to get your subscription fees back when you already got the benefit for which you paid.
Thirdly, regarding the initial game cost, good luck proving that you would never ever have bought it if you knew that it would possibly, at some time in the future, go B2P. And even if you manage to prove that, good luck getting a refund if you've been using the service as it was advertised (i.e. subscription-based) until now.
In short, I'm against the change to B2P and encourage everyone to vote with your wallets and walk away if you're unhappy. I know I will if I ever get the feeling they're pushing me into spending (more) money in the crown store. But in the end, I don't think there's a case against ZOS under Portuguese and EU consumer laws, and I doubt US or Australian laws are any more protective of consumers.
Needless to say, this has been the expression of my personal opinion as a lawyer under Portuguese law and should not be regarded or relied upon in any way as legal advice or a statement of any rights or remedies you may have under any laws. This opinion carries no warranties, whether express or implied.
Yes, and yet again I'm not looking at things from legal perspective, but moral/ethical one.
I'm asking people whether this kind of behaviour should be condoned, when it's simply wrong (but not legally), and whether the MMO industry could use regulations or laws to make sure things like this do not happen again.
You're citing consumer rights that were enacted in to law, so you're making a legal argument.
And you're wrong on the moral/ethical front too, which is what the post you quoted explained. You received what you paid for. There is no moral issue here. Companies hurting your feelings is not unethical.----
Murray?0 -
daemonios✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »As a lawyer, I find these recent threads about consumer law hilarious
I'm a trained lawyer under Portuguese law. I took consumer law in college and worked in a consumer conflicts meditation centre. As a lawyer I've advised on B2C issues, including in the field of e-commerce.
In my opinion, ZOS may have lied when they previously stated that they would never go B2P, but that doesn't do much for you as a consumer.
Firstly, as many have pointed out, this game isn't a mere product but rather a service, subject to the ToS you should have read and agreed to before you started playing. It's a long stretch to consider the clause under which ZOS may change the subscription model contrary to consumer protection laws.
Secondly, ESO being a service, our subscriptions ensured continued access to it. Good luck trying to get your subscription fees back when you already got the benefit for which you paid.
Thirdly, regarding the initial game cost, good luck proving that you would never ever have bought it if you knew that it would possibly, at some time in the future, go B2P. And even if you manage to prove that, good luck getting a refund if you've been using the service as it was advertised (i.e. subscription-based) until now.
In short, I'm against the change to B2P and encourage everyone to vote with your wallets and walk away if you're unhappy. I know I will if I ever get the feeling they're pushing me into spending (more) money in the crown store. But in the end, I don't think there's a case against ZOS under Portuguese and EU consumer laws, and I doubt US or Australian laws are any more protective of consumers.
Needless to say, this has been the expression of my personal opinion as a lawyer under Portuguese law and should not be regarded or relied upon in any way as legal advice or a statement of any rights or remedies you may have under any laws. This opinion carries no warranties, whether express or implied.
Yes, and yet again I'm not looking at things from legal perspective, but moral/ethical one.
I'm asking people whether this kind of behaviour should be condoned, when it's simply wrong (but not legally), and whether the MMO industry could use regulations or laws to make sure things like this do not happen again.
You're citing consumer rights that were enacted in to law, so you're making a legal argument.
And you're wrong on the moral/ethical front too, which is what the post you quoted explained. You received what you paid for. There is no moral issue here. Companies hurting your feelings is not unethical.
I would disagree. While I've stated that I don't think there's a legal case against ZOS, the moral one swings the other way. The most effective way to force companies to defend consumers is to vote with your wallet. If you're absolutely against the change, please stop playing the game. If you keep playing, you're sending the wrong signal. I'm not up to the point of quitting (yet) but I won't think twice to leave if and when I feel I've had enough.0 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »As a lawyer, I find these recent threads about consumer law hilarious
I'm a trained lawyer under Portuguese law. I took consumer law in college and worked in a consumer conflicts meditation centre. As a lawyer I've advised on B2C issues, including in the field of e-commerce.
In my opinion, ZOS may have lied when they previously stated that they would never go B2P, but that doesn't do much for you as a consumer.
Firstly, as many have pointed out, this game isn't a mere product but rather a service, subject to the ToS you should have read and agreed to before you started playing. It's a long stretch to consider the clause under which ZOS may change the subscription model contrary to consumer protection laws.
Secondly, ESO being a service, our subscriptions ensured continued access to it. Good luck trying to get your subscription fees back when you already got the benefit for which you paid.
Thirdly, regarding the initial game cost, good luck proving that you would never ever have bought it if you knew that it would possibly, at some time in the future, go B2P. And even if you manage to prove that, good luck getting a refund if you've been using the service as it was advertised (i.e. subscription-based) until now.
In short, I'm against the change to B2P and encourage everyone to vote with your wallets and walk away if you're unhappy. I know I will if I ever get the feeling they're pushing me into spending (more) money in the crown store. But in the end, I don't think there's a case against ZOS under Portuguese and EU consumer laws, and I doubt US or Australian laws are any more protective of consumers.
Needless to say, this has been the expression of my personal opinion as a lawyer under Portuguese law and should not be regarded or relied upon in any way as legal advice or a statement of any rights or remedies you may have under any laws. This opinion carries no warranties, whether express or implied.
Yes, and yet again I'm not looking at things from legal perspective, but moral/ethical one.
I'm asking people whether this kind of behaviour should be condoned, when it's simply wrong (but not legally), and whether the MMO industry could use regulations or laws to make sure things like this do not happen again.
You're citing consumer rights that were enacted in to law, so you're making a legal argument.
And you're wrong on the moral/ethical front too, which is what the post you quoted explained. You received what you paid for. There is no moral issue here. Companies hurting your feelings is not unethical.
I would disagree. While I've stated that I don't think there's a legal case against ZOS, the moral one swings the other way. The most effective way to force companies to defend consumers is to vote with your wallet. If you're absolutely against the change, please stop playing the game. If you keep playing, you're sending the wrong signal. I'm not up to the point of quitting (yet) but I won't think twice to leave if and when I feel I've had enough.
I agree that you can vote with your wallet, but framing this in moral terms doesn't make sense to me. Morals and ethics have nothing to do with not liking a payment structure. Morality is a much deeper topic.----
Murray?1 -
DDuke✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Nocturnalis wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
New forum posting requirement: a J.D.
Ironically the J.D.s are usually the guys not discussing the law on the internet.
The fact is the issues at play in this hypothetical lawsuit are actually quite complex. So complex, in fact, that most lawyers would need to do a lot of research to even begin discussing the issues intelligently.
The only rational advice given in this thread so far has been: "If you feel strongly, consult an attorney."
That's it. Everything else is noise.
And any attorney who has half a brain would offer the rational advice of, "Save your time and effort."
Unfortunately, you lack both the education and the credentials to make that determination. That's why OP should consult a real lawyer--not a pretend internet lawyer--for real advice.
Unfortunately, you lack both knowledge of my credentials and a valid opinion on the OP, who is making wildly incorrect claims about consumer law. Any attorney would tell him to not waste his time.
Unless you'd like to offer him some different legal advice? Isn't that what you're hinting you have the ability to do?
Please educate me, oh enlightened one.
How is any of my points actually incorrect?
Others have already explained, but here you go, tiger:
1. Your right to be heard is the right to be heard, not the right to be listened to.
2. Your right to be informed was not infringed on. You've received enough notification of the upcoming payment plan to cancel your subscription, if that's your choice. Your right to be informed does not extend to being informed of how a company spends its money. You paid for a subscription and received one.
3. Right to a healthy environment does not refer to how happy you feel playing a game or whether you feel that others are able to play a game with perks that you don't get. Capitalism allows people to purchase luxury items if they choose to spend money on it.
4. You have not lost your right to consumer redress. For starters, there's no redress needed, as you have no financial grievance. You can cancel your subscription if you don't want to continue paying one. But customer service is not required to change the game in order for you to have redress. That's not how it works.
But please, follow the other advice given and consult a lawyer. There's nothing people enjoy more than a good, long laugh.
1. Only right I had was to be ignored. Same can be said of the majority of population. How many of the consumers actually wanted this change? Polls show majority against them, and it's not like ZO$ cared enough to make an official one & ask us.
2. No information came through about our subscriptions being used to create Cash Shop content & DLCs, instead of content for the current game. You do not determine how much we should know or not.
3. Healthy environment is a fair environment. An environment where other people get advantage for $$$ can be argued to be unhealthy. In real life, achieving more power & special benefits amounts to corruption, which is illegal in most countries (and I would certainly not call it "healthy").
4. I have financial grievance, I spent lots of money in a product that didn't end up like it was envisioned.
How is this different to listening to an architect who wants to build you a house, you pay for the construction & it all breaks down? Instead of even apologizing, the architect tells you to live in the rubbles.
1. Doesn't matter. The right to be heard does not mean that the company needs to listen to you or make any kind of poll. You're being heard right now, on their official forum no less (that's also not part of your right to be heard).
2. Your subscription fee paid for your subscription. How a company spends your money is not something that you, as a consumer, are entitled to know. As an analogy, if you buy a burger from McDonald's, you don't get a refund because they don't spend the profits the way you'd like them to.
3. In real life, people getting special benefits for spending more money is called capitalism.
4. You spent lots of money on a product that was exactly as advertised when you spent that money on your access to it. If you weren't satisfied with your subscription, you had the right to cancel it before. You didn't, so you clearly were satisfied with the product. Not being satisfied about the future of the product doesn't entitle you to restitution for something you already asked for and received.
1. You seem to be missing the whole point of being heard. Being heard means they actually see our posts & opinions and respond to them, because else there can be no assurance this right has been fulfilled.
It means they ask us if we'd like to see a change in business model (and any other trivial thing), and do what the consumers want (just like any other business out there). "Customer is always right", and if majority of customers demand a certain thing, that thing should then be provided unless it is impossible (and explained to the customers).
2. Your analogies still suck. What you are describing is purchasing a finished product, not a service. And again, I'm not looking at things from legal perspective.
3. In sports, video games, politics & multiple other fields, purchasing special benefits for $$$ is corruption (again, illegal). Whether you purchase a pony guar in game or a sports car in real life, I don't care. That sports car isn't going to make you play in a better football team and that pony guar isn't making you a better player.
4. The product I purchased was supposed to release Imperial City somewhere last fall, Thieves Guild/Dark Brotherhood was supposed to be in game "few months after launch" among multiple other things. I kept paying, because I wanted to support the game & see it get better (not worse). I'm not sure how my personal experience has anything to do with the topic though.1 -
Korah_Eaglecry✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »nerevarine1138 wrote: »Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).
I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.
I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.
And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.
I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.
To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.
The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.
Because you don't know my background, education, etc., but you love trolling people on the internet?
I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that you're not a lawyer and you don't know what you're talking about. I know that despite knowing almost nothing about you. I know only that you did not attend an American law school and that you do not practice law. Go ahead and guess at how I know that.
If you believe that because youre a lawyer, that someone else who disagrees with you is not a lawyer.
Sorry to burst your bubble buddy. But plenty of lawyers disagree with each other and go to court with each other over their clients..Happens everyday in the US.
Plenty of people have studied Law but didnt have a lick of common sense. If youre trying to assume a persons education and job description, or lack there of, by internet interactions. Youre just as much an idiot as the guy youre quoting.Penniless Sellsword CompanyCaptain Paramount - Jorrhaq VhentKorith Eaglecry * Enrerion Aedihle * Laerinel Rhaev * Caius Berilius * Seylina Ithvala * H'Vak the GrimjawlTenarei Rhaev * Dazsh Ro Khar * Yynril Rothvani * Bathes-In-Coin * Anaelle Faerniil * Azjani Ma'LesAban Shahid Bakr * Kheshna gra-Gharbuk * Gallisten Bondurant * Etain Maquier * Atsu Kalame * Faulpia SeverinusWhat is better, to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort? - Paarthurnax1 -
DDuke✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »As a lawyer, I find these recent threads about consumer law hilarious
I'm a trained lawyer under Portuguese law. I took consumer law in college and worked in a consumer conflicts meditation centre. As a lawyer I've advised on B2C issues, including in the field of e-commerce.
In my opinion, ZOS may have lied when they previously stated that they would never go B2P, but that doesn't do much for you as a consumer.
Firstly, as many have pointed out, this game isn't a mere product but rather a service, subject to the ToS you should have read and agreed to before you started playing. It's a long stretch to consider the clause under which ZOS may change the subscription model contrary to consumer protection laws.
Secondly, ESO being a service, our subscriptions ensured continued access to it. Good luck trying to get your subscription fees back when you already got the benefit for which you paid.
Thirdly, regarding the initial game cost, good luck proving that you would never ever have bought it if you knew that it would possibly, at some time in the future, go B2P. And even if you manage to prove that, good luck getting a refund if you've been using the service as it was advertised (i.e. subscription-based) until now.
In short, I'm against the change to B2P and encourage everyone to vote with your wallets and walk away if you're unhappy. I know I will if I ever get the feeling they're pushing me into spending (more) money in the crown store. But in the end, I don't think there's a case against ZOS under Portuguese and EU consumer laws, and I doubt US or Australian laws are any more protective of consumers.
Needless to say, this has been the expression of my personal opinion as a lawyer under Portuguese law and should not be regarded or relied upon in any way as legal advice or a statement of any rights or remedies you may have under any laws. This opinion carries no warranties, whether express or implied.
Yes, and yet again I'm not looking at things from legal perspective, but moral/ethical one.
I'm asking people whether this kind of behaviour should be condoned, when it's simply wrong (but not legally), and whether the MMO industry could use regulations or laws to make sure things like this do not happen again.
You're citing consumer rights that were enacted in to law, so you're making a legal argument.
And you're wrong on the moral/ethical front too, which is what the post you quoted explained. You received what you paid for. There is no moral issue here. Companies hurting your feelings is not unethical.
I would disagree. While I've stated that I don't think there's a legal case against ZOS, the moral one swings the other way. The most effective way to force companies to defend consumers is to vote with your wallet. If you're absolutely against the change, please stop playing the game. If you keep playing, you're sending the wrong signal. I'm not up to the point of quitting (yet) but I won't think twice to leave if and when I feel I've had enough.
Voting with your wallet never works, because every day there are more and more stupid people who buy into these kind of cash grabs, encouraging more of them to happen.
This has likely to do with human intelligence being on decline in general, as proven by multiple studies.
It's the very definition of a scam, something that seems good & irresistable to fools, but in the end is just aimed towards drying your wallet.
Which is the exact reason more regulations & laws should apply to not only MMOs, but gaming in general (day-1 DLC, pre-order bonuses etc).
Something needs to govern people & companies, so they don't cause harm to themselves & others.Edited by DDuke on January 24, 2015 5:53PM2
This discussion has been closed.