Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
Australians - you ARE entitled to a refund because of b2p.
-
Korah_Eaglecry✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Nyghthowler wrote: »
Doesnt matter. You are not bound to a contract that may remove your legal rights or demand you take part in illegal actions.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? - Paarthurnax3 -
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »Nyghthowler wrote: »
Doesnt matter. You are not bound to a contract that may remove your legal rights or demand you take part in illegal actions.
Finally! Someone who gets that point! Well said!v14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux2 -
Korah_Eaglecry✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭starkerealm wrote: »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.
Yup, can you imagine if the Australian law actually did protect things like this? All those Australians could have demanded a refund because "I would not have bought the game if I had known they would shut down the servers" This is not much different then saying "I would not have bought the game had I known they would add more features to my subscription and add an additional and optional way to pay for services" =D
"HOW DARE THEY GIVE ME MORE THAN I PAID FOR! I DEMAND REPARATIONS!"
I don't know, that part still cracks me up.
Well, that is not exactly the case. Some of us were paying our subs because we did not want an in-game shop, and we are therefore getting less from this. It would be like me eating at a restaurant that caters on using all natural foods, and then adding corn syrup to all meals and saying, "why so mad. I am giving you more food." More of something you don't want is less overall.
No no youre not getting less. Just because you feel that youre getting less does not mean that you are factually or legally getting less.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? - Paarthurnax4 -
Vis✭✭✭✭✭
✭Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »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.
Yup, can you imagine if the Australian law actually did protect things like this? All those Australians could have demanded a refund because "I would not have bought the game if I had known they would shut down the servers" This is not much different then saying "I would not have bought the game had I known they would add more features to my subscription and add an additional and optional way to pay for services" =D
"HOW DARE THEY GIVE ME MORE THAN I PAID FOR! I DEMAND REPARATIONS!"
I don't know, that part still cracks me up.
Well, that is not exactly the case. Some of us were paying our subs because we did not want an in-game shop, and we are therefore getting less from this. It would be like me eating at a restaurant that caters on using all natural foods, and then adding corn syrup to all meals and saying, "why so mad. I am giving you more food." More of something you don't want is less overall.
No no youre not getting less. Just because you feel that youre getting less does not mean that you are factually or legally getting less.
Getting less. Once upon a time, if a dev was working on a cosmetic, it would go to the game where everyone could access it via sub. That's right, with a sub and playtime, I could access anything/everything in-game the devs produced. However, a store quarantines off some of this new developed content and places it into a real money only section.
Again:
Sub used to = all published content
Now sub = whatever published content not exclusive to the store
See how that works? Same devs, same game, less freedom.
Your saying I am getting more makes it no more true.
Remember, the purpose of the sub was two fold:
-Maintaining current content
-Funding for all future contentEdited by Vis on January 24, 2015 8:20AMv14 Sorc Vae Exillis
v14 DK Costs
v14 NB 'Vis
v14 Temp Fiat Lux2 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »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.
Yup, can you imagine if the Australian law actually did protect things like this? All those Australians could have demanded a refund because "I would not have bought the game if I had known they would shut down the servers" This is not much different then saying "I would not have bought the game had I known they would add more features to my subscription and add an additional and optional way to pay for services" =D
"HOW DARE THEY GIVE ME MORE THAN I PAID FOR! I DEMAND REPARATIONS!"
I don't know, that part still cracks me up.
Well, that is not exactly the case. Some of us were paying our subs because we did not want an in-game shop, and we are therefore getting less from this. It would be like me eating at a restaurant that caters on using all natural foods, and then adding corn syrup to all meals and saying, "why so mad. I am giving you more food." More of something you don't want is less overall.
No no youre not getting less. Just because you feel that youre getting less does not mean that you are factually or legally getting less.
Getting less. Once upon a time, if a dev was working on a cosmetic, it would go to the game where everyone could access it via sub. That's right, with a sub and playtime, I could access anything/everything in-game the devs produced. However, a store quarantines off some of this new developed content and places it into a real money only section.
Again:
Sub used to = all published content
Now sub = whatever published content not exclusive to the store
See how that works? Same devs, same game, less freedom.
Your saying I am getting more makes it no more true.
Remember, the purpose of the sub was two fold:
-Maintaining current content
-Funding for all future content
Holy Stendarr. I go to sleep and you manage to go even deeper down the rabbit hole. As much as I admire your can-do (or in this case, can-defraud) attitude, here are a few things to be aware of:
1. You can't jump back and forth between Australia and the US. If an Australian or an American files a credit card chargeback fraudulently, it's still fraud. Doesn't matter if they get caught; it's fraud. Australians have access to a different legal system by which they may challenge a company's right to refuse them a refund, etc. But that has nothing to do with credit card chargebacks.
2. When you know that you received goods or services, your claiming that you didn't receive them is fraud. You can spin it any way you like, but if the case comes to court, you're going to be in a world of hurt. Lucky for people like you, these cases rarely go to court. You should be thankful.
3. Finally, your subscription fees may end up being used by ZO for any purpose they like, but they only paid for one thing: access to the game. You received that. Period. There is no, "But I paid for future content with my sub." There is no, "But now the game is going to suck, therefore I get money." You get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir.----
Murray?4 -
ashlee17✭✭✭✭More food for thought.
Full steam ahead: ACCC institutes proceedings against Valve for making alleged misleading consumer guarantee representations
29 August 2014
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Valve Corporation (Valve) alleging that Valve made false or misleading representations regarding the application of the consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
Valve is an entertainment software and technology company located in the United States of America. Valve owns and operates an online computer game distribution platform known as ‘Steam’ that has over 65 million users worldwide. Valve sells computer games through Steam to Australian consumers, but does not have a physical presence in Australia.
The ACCC alleges that Valve made false or misleading representations to Australian customers of Steam that:
consumers were not entitled to a refund for any games sold by Valve via Steam in any circumstances;
Valve had excluded, restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality;
Valve was not under any obligation to repair, replace or provide a refund for a game where the consumer had not contacted and attempted to resolve the problem with the computer game developer; and
the statutory consumer guarantees did not apply to games sold by Valve.
“The Australian Consumer Law applies to any business providing goods or services within Australia. Valve may be an American based company with no physical presence in Australia, but it is carrying on business in Australia by selling to Australian consumers, who are protected by the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.
“It is a breach of the Australian Consumer Law for businesses to state that they do not give refunds under any circumstances, including for gifts and during sales. Under the Australian Consumer Law, consumers can insist on a refund or replacement at their option if a product has a major fault.”
“The consumer guarantees provided under the Australian Consumer Law cannot be excluded, restricted or modified,” Mr Sims said.
The ACCC is seeking declarations, injunctions, pecuniary penalties, disclosure orders, adverse publicity orders, non-party consumer redress, a compliance program order and costs.
The matter has been filed in the Federal Court’s Sydney Registry. A date for the first directions hearing is set for 7 October 2014 at the Federal Court in Sydney before Justice Jagot.
The Australian Consumer Law provides consumers with rights to certain remedies from retailers and manufacturers, when goods fail to comply with the consumer guarantee provisions of the ACL, including that the goods are of acceptable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold. That is, if a good is not, for example, of acceptable quality, consumers may be entitled to a refund or a replacement item. These rights cannot be excluded, restricted or modified.
1 -
eisberg✭✭✭Good thing the TOS states specifically there may be different provisions for Australia. Meaning call Customer Support, cause you probably can get a refund on any remaining time from March 17th.0 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Quoting the same bad case law in two different threads doesn't mean it applies. Valve was sued over their refund policies for products, not over a subscription fee. If you can find a magazine that was successfully sued because a subscriber decided 90% of the way through their paid time that they didn't like one of the articles, then you'll have found an applicable case.----
Murray?2 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Mine falls in the third category. My claim is that introducing store items for real money introduces new game content and breeches the earlier description of my subscription that it would provide me access to all new content without premium charges. Thus the quality of service has changed.
Nothing fraudulent about that claim as the changes are real, and the quality judgment is subjective and my honest opinion. So stop using the word "fraud," because it does not apply.
Save me? There is no saving necessary. I may lose the dispute, but there are no other legal consequences to my filing the dispute.
The problem is, you contracted to receive a service. Which you did receive. You were explicitly warned in the contract that the service might change over time, adding new features.
The service was changed, providing new features. The biggest one is, you're no longer required to pay for the service, but still benefit from it. You are also being more choices to buy off the menu if you want. You aren't being forced to pay more money if you don't want to, and you're actually being offered the option to pay less than you would have. The service you're receiving isn't being taken away.
Do you understand these things?
I get where you feel slighted. But, look at the service. You are getting more tangible benefits and perks from it than you were at launch. You're certainly welcome to file a dispute, none of us could stop you, even if we wanted to.
But, at the same time, the credit card company would look at the part where you received what you paid for, and then start a fraud investigation against you. Because you would not be the first person to buy a thing, receive that thing, and then say, "I got this thing, but I don't want to pay for it, so I'll find some way to claim it's defective."
And, as I said, you can't even make your claim that you were paying for a game without a cash shop because there was one in the game at launch.2 -
technohic✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭All this is childish. You don't need Australian laws to just contest a charge and probably anyone can do that and would take just a few minutes but be aware you will be perma banned from your account
All this drama on getting Australia to go after ZOS because of the law makes you sound like the biggest whiner on the planet and I would love for any of you to go through with it.Edited by technohic on January 24, 2015 2:46PM2 -
You made 2 threads on this?
Ill give my CC response
They just need to word it differently, the current format will still have a sub and there not canceling what you have now there letting you still sub and as a extra reward for the sub there adding things for the subbers .
The sky is falling1 -
Myimm✭I'd be interested to know what the terms and conditions have to say on the subject of refunds. I'd be willing to bet somewhere in the agreement you waive your Right to refund.0 -
Korah_Eaglecry✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »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.
Yup, can you imagine if the Australian law actually did protect things like this? All those Australians could have demanded a refund because "I would not have bought the game if I had known they would shut down the servers" This is not much different then saying "I would not have bought the game had I known they would add more features to my subscription and add an additional and optional way to pay for services" =D
"HOW DARE THEY GIVE ME MORE THAN I PAID FOR! I DEMAND REPARATIONS!"
I don't know, that part still cracks me up.
Well, that is not exactly the case. Some of us were paying our subs because we did not want an in-game shop, and we are therefore getting less from this. It would be like me eating at a restaurant that caters on using all natural foods, and then adding corn syrup to all meals and saying, "why so mad. I am giving you more food." More of something you don't want is less overall.
No no youre not getting less. Just because you feel that youre getting less does not mean that you are factually or legally getting less.
Getting less. Once upon a time, if a dev was working on a cosmetic, it would go to the game where everyone could access it via sub. That's right, with a sub and playtime, I could access anything/everything in-game the devs produced. However, a store quarantines off some of this new developed content and places it into a real money only section.
Again:
Sub used to = all published content
Now sub = whatever published content not exclusive to the store
See how that works? Same devs, same game, less freedom.
Your saying I am getting more makes it no more true.
Remember, the purpose of the sub was two fold:
-Maintaining current content
-Funding for all future content
Good luck trying to hold up the argument of cosmetics in court.
You can keep ranting all you want. But when the gavel comes in to play youd be in for a shock.
Its not as if these cosmetic items were available to you prior to B2P. Its not like they removed them from the game, shoved a price tag on them and put them in the store. These items were developed with the intention of selling them to you separately once the game went B2P.
You swear up and down that youve had things taken from you all you want. But it doesnt make a difference. But Ill tell you what. You go find a lawyer that wants to take ZOS to court over your losses. And then come back here and tell us how it turns out.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? - Paarthurnax3 -
olemanwinter✭✭✭✭✭Question:
If you buy a subscription for a year to a technology magazine called Computers Today (made up) and 4 months into the sub you get a letter that says, "Good news you are now going to get our new BBQ Recipes Today (made up) magazine instead automatically for the remaining 8 months of your subscription", is that legal?3 -
Spottswoode✭✭✭✭✭olemanwinter wrote: »Question:
If you buy a subscription for a year to a technology magazine called Computers Today (made up) and 4 months into the sub you get a letter that says, "Good news you are now going to get our new BBQ Recipes Today (made up) magazine instead automatically for the remaining 8 months of your subscription", is that legal?
The business can change format. You have zero legal recourse for that. The business can also change the product it develops and sells as it pleases. In fact, if it gives you enough advance notice, it can pretty much do anything within the limits of criminal law and still leave you no legal recourse. So, yes. You have notice. The most you can do for certain is cancel your subscription. You might be legally entitled to a refund, but that doesn't mean you will get it
If it changed suddenly without notice, that would be a different story.
This is also completely inapplicable to the topic as well.
Edited by Spottswoode on January 25, 2015 10:59AMProud Player of The Elder Bank Screen Online.
My khajiit loves his moon sugar.
Steam Profile
Libertas est periculosum. Liberum cogitandi est haeresis. Ergo, et ego terroristis.
Current main PC build:
i7 3770 (Not overclocking currently.)
MSI Gaming X GTX 1070
32gb RAM
Laptop:
i7-7700HQ
GTX 1060
16gb RAM
Secondary build:
i3 2330
GTX 660
8gb RAM1 -
ashlee17✭✭✭✭Wouldn't it just be nice if zos poped into to this thread and offered those already subscribed past March 17 the option of pro rata refund? Legal obligation or not. Might restore some faith and goodwill...2
-
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Wouldn't it just be nice if zos poped into to this thread and offered those already subscribed past March 17 the option of pro rata refund? Legal obligation or not. Might restore some faith and goodwill...
Yes, giving people money does restore goodwill. Is it a sound business practice? Nope.----
Murray?1 -
RDMyers65b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭It finally dawned on me the argument that will end this.
CUSTOMER: I want to sue ZOS and get my money back.
LAWYER: OK, why?
CUSTOMER: Well, I have been paying the price of a subscription fee for almost a year and now they are dropping the subscription fee. It will be free to play.
LAWYER: And they are taking away features?
CUSTOMER: No, it is the same game but now it will be free. It is the end. I want my money back that I have paid. It was $15.00 a month.
LAWYER: Let me see if I am understanding this. You are wanting a refund because you do not have to pay any fees anymore? Nothing has changed but it is now free. OK, if you will just sign my fee services contract. It is $200 per hour with a minimum of 10 hours. And you must pay the fee in full upfront.
2 -
ashlee17✭✭✭✭Why do some people assume you need a lawyer to get a refund? There are plenty of governmental and other organisations that are already well paid to help protect and enforce consumer rights.Edited by ashlee17 on January 25, 2015 2:48PM0
-
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭olemanwinter wrote: »Question:
If you buy a subscription for a year to a technology magazine called Computers Today (made up) and 4 months into the sub you get a letter that says, "Good news you are now going to get our new BBQ Recipes Today (made up) magazine instead automatically for the remaining 8 months of your subscription", is that legal?
That is not what happened tho. The word instead is wrong. You are not getting B2P instead of paying a subscription, you get it in addition to a sub, as an optional alternative way.
They did not replace one magazine with another, they gave you a second magazine on top of the original one.2 -
Akhratos✭✭✭✭What happens in the US? You have no consumer rights centers? And I mean, consumer rights associations that are State-driven, not a bunch of anti-corporation freaks running a business in a basement and telling you fairy tales about going to court.
You do not have to hire a lawyer. You just have to make a claim against the company in their office. If they give you the reason after the investigation and contact with the company (they are no jury, but they are law experts who work for a state-institution), and the company does not abide to it, they take them to court without resulting in any cost for you.
90% of the time, the court will sentence the company the same the consumers institution did, reason why most companies always abide to them.
I made a claim against my phone company a few years ago. Such is the 2nd biggest EU comms company and has recently swallowed a few other companies in close countries, aside of spending like 2.000 million € just to widen their optic fiber covering in my country this last year. I was given the reason for a case where they claimed I hired a service I did not.
Less than a week it took the company to make me a total refund along with the interests. They had been rejecting me the refund for 4 months before I put the claim and there was a decision. Of course, such company was one of which abides to the consumers institution. After all, if you do not, most probably you get the same result in a court, worse press, and maybe a sanction for your lack of good faith.
I dont even know if they would give you the reason in this matter, but its becoming a bit sad that so many ignorant people keeps talking about hiring a lawyer to make a sue against a international company in the 21th century when we are talking about consumer-corporate relations.
I have no doubt nobody would get a refund for the monthly sub prior to March. I, in the other hand, have high doubts ZOS can magically convert your monthly fee in a P2P game to a "premium" fee in a B2P game.
Whatever the TOS says, law > contracts & norms.2 -
Ysne58✭✭✭✭✭What we have are broken promises.
1. Play how you like.
a. forced solo
b. forced group
c. there are other examples but I can't think of em right now.
2. We have no intention of change pay to play.
They are going buy to play with optional sub.
3. Wrothgar
4. Imperial City
5. Murkmire
6. Craglorn (fulfilled)
You could make an argument that you paid the sub you have paid in reliance on their promise to release 3 through 5. You could argue that being made to pay for those 3 a second time unjustly enriches ZOS. I doubt it would work, but there you go for an analysis.
1 I'm betting that at least the forced solo will change shortly after the console players start whining.
2. Since they appear to be offering what we have free of charge -- where are the damages?
Of course if you do make that unjust enrichment claim -- ZOS can always argue that you are getting enough crowns through the ongoing subscription to pay for them. So, again where is the loss to you?3 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Why do some people assume you need a lawyer to get a refund? There are plenty of governmental and other organisations that are already well paid to help protect and enforce consumer rights.
Because it's where the case would end up if you pressed the matter. You make a claim to your credit card company, they investigate. If they take action, then ZoS responds, but more likely, they don't, and then your choice is to sit down and shut up, or take it into arbitration. I haven't checked to see if the ToS requires arbitration dispute resolution, but I'd be somewhat surprised if it doesn't. At that point you need a lawyer, and you'll lose anyway.1 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭What happens in the US? You have no consumer rights centers? And I mean, consumer rights associations that are State-driven, not a bunch of anti-corporation freaks running a business in a basement and telling you fairy tales about going to court.
Nope.I made a claim against my phone company a few years ago. Such is the 2nd biggest EU comms company and has recently swallowed a few other companies in close countries, aside of spending like 2.000 million € just to widen their optic fiber covering in my country this last year. I was given the reason for a case where they claimed I hired a service I did not.
Less than a week it took the company to make me a total refund along with the interests. They had been rejecting me the refund for 4 months before I put the claim and there was a decision. Of course, such company was one of which abides to the consumers institution. After all, if you do not, most probably you get the same result in a court, worse press, and maybe a sanction for your lack of good faith.
Yeah, in the US, that would (and has) required a federal agency to intervene, and their findings will end up in court regardless. If it's just one person, you're SoL.
You want to go after something like, "well they changed the service." Your choices are to file a dispute with your credit card company over the charges. Which, they'll investigate and find against you because you actually got what you paid for. Or you can sue them. There isn't a magical consumer rights organization that will come swooping down to save you.I dont even know if they would give you the reason in this matter, but its becoming a bit sad that so many ignorant people keeps talking about hiring a lawyer to make a sue against a international company in the 21th century when we are talking about consumer-corporate relations.
Because, when dealing with a US firm, they have no incentive to play nice. They might throw you a bone if they think it looks like good PR, but otherwise, lawyer up.Whatever the TOS says, law > contracts & norms.
That's not how it works in the states. A contract can actually define the method of dispute resolution, and enforce that. Which, usually means arbitration, which heavily favors the corporate interests. If you have a contract with someone, like a telecom, that says you must seek resolution through binding arbitration, you literally cannot sue them. You need to go into arbitration, accept an arbitrator who's future income is dependent on making the corporation happy, and abide by their ruling.0 -
THammer✭Someone did not understand the EULA. You are not buying the game, you are agreeing to a license. You are also agreeing that you understand the game may be changed.Edited by THammer on January 25, 2015 5:50PM3 -
Malpherian✭✭✭✭✭I usually do not get involved in debates like this but US consumers are also protected.
If:
1. A company (ZOS in this case) makes statements or guarantees for a product, stating that if you buy this we offer these, as services (List services 4-6 week updates regular new content, Unique content for special purchases imperial edition etc (anyone remember the mud crabs and wolfhounds?) etc)
And then turn around and do not deliver those products as promised "Or intentionally change said products directly negating said promise of services or making them irrelevant, with the intent of profiting off of consumers who have already purchased said item without the knowledge that said services will not be delivered (Ie Misleading the Consumer)", in the time frames promised, are liable for Fraud, False advertising, and Intentionally misleading their consumers, under US consumer laws. (See the fiasco with Trion Worlds and Archeage for more info on this).
Violation of such entitles the consumer to a full refund of all purchases made in the time allotted for which the company promised said services but did not deliver, and possibly a class action lawsuit against said company, if not hefty federal and state imposed fines.
So yes, ZOS does have a serious issue, both financial and legal. Should people actually chose to seek restitution "En-Masse" for it.Edited by Malpherian on January 25, 2015 6:26PM3 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Malpherian wrote: »I usually do not get involved in debates like this but US consumers are also protected.
If:
1. A company (ZOS in this case) makes statements or guarantees for a product, stating that if you buy this we offer these, as services (List services 4-6 week updates regular new content, Unique content for special purchases imperial edition etc (anyone remember the mud crabs and wolfhounds?) etc)
And then turn around and do not deliver those products as promised "Or intentionally change said products directly negating said promise of services or making them irrelevant, with the intent of profiting off of consumers who have already purchased said item without the knowledge that said services will not be delivered (Ie Misleading the Consumer)", in the time frames promised, are liable for Fraud, False advertising, and Intentionally misleading their consumers, under US consumer laws. (See the fiasco with Trion Worlds and Archeage for more info on this).
Violation of such entitles the consumer to a full refund of all purchases made in the time allotted for which the company promised said services but did not deliver, and possibly a class action lawsuit against said company, if not hefty federal and state imposed fines.
So yes, ZOS does have a serious issue, both financial and legal. Should people actually chose to seek restitution "En-Masse" for it.
I'd urge you to read the ToS and actually understand consumer law.
You received all services paid for in the period you paid for them. If you didn't receive your subscription time, you ought to let someone know. If you weren't satisfied with the game, you had the option to cancel your subscription.----
Murray?2 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Malpherian wrote: »...and Intentionally misleading their consumers, under US consumer laws.
And you were doing so well... no, wait, you weren't.
Anyway, false advertising is a light higher bar than you seem to think. Fraud has a much higher bar than you think.
False advertising would be like if they were actually advertising the spell crafting system on the box, claiming it was already in game, or if they claimed that the contents of the Imperial Edition were standard and didn't even include a footnote saying, "yeah, this is actually a separate purchase."
Fraud would require something much more extreme. Like collecting your credit card data, and then using that to make purchases "for you" with other retailers. While collecting a commission fee. Which, I don't think ZoS has done.
You bought a product, it didn't live up to your expectations, that's not fraud. And unless they actually lied to you about what it is, that's not false advertising. Note, I didn't say "they actually lied to you about what it might be someday," because that's not false advertising.3 -
eisberg✭✭✭olemanwinter wrote: »Question:
If you buy a subscription for a year to a technology magazine called Computers Today (made up) and 4 months into the sub you get a letter that says, "Good news you are now going to get our new BBQ Recipes Today (made up) magazine instead automatically for the remaining 8 months of your subscription", is that legal?
That is a very bad analogy, cause that is no where near what is happening.
4 -
Malpherian✭✭✭✭✭starkerealm wrote: »Malpherian wrote: »...and Intentionally misleading their consumers, under US consumer laws.
And you were doing so well... no, wait, you weren't.
Anyway, false advertising is a light higher bar than you seem to think. Fraud has a much higher bar than you think.
False advertising would be like if they were actually advertising the spell crafting system on the box, claiming it was already in game, or if they claimed that the contents of the Imperial Edition were standard and didn't even include a footnote saying, "yeah, this is actually a separate purchase."
Fraud would require something much more extreme. Like collecting your credit card data, and then using that to make purchases "for you" with other retailers. While collecting a commission fee. Which, I don't think ZoS has done.
You bought a product, it didn't live up to your expectations, that's not fraud. And unless they actually lied to you about what it is, that's not false advertising. Note, I didn't say "they actually lied to you about what it might be someday," because that's not false advertising.
They did lie to us about what it actually is. Repeatedly In advertisements, as well as on the website, And yes many of the features on the box were not in game on release (and some still are not) IE the justice system for example ( One among many).
Edited by Malpherian on January 25, 2015 7:37PM2