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

Sharee · January 2015

Malpherian wrote: »

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).

Justice system was on the box? That would surprise me. Got a picture? (i bought digital)

starkerealm · January 2015

Malpherian wrote: »

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).

Okay, you seem to be confused about what advertising is.

Also very confused about what's on the back of the box.

So, let's start with that.

After 20 years of best-selling, award-winning fantasy RPGs, the Elder Scrolls series goes online like no MMO before it.
A Connected Game World - Using ZeniMax Online's Megaserver technology you no longer need to choose a server, but instead play in one connected world.
Play the Way You Like - With an enhanced Elder Scrolls combat system, engage in real-time targeting and use any weapon at any time, no matter your class.
Your Quest to Save Tamriel - Discover the hidden secrets of Tamriel the way you want as you use the compass to explore at your own pace and save the world.

I didn't see anything about the justice system in that list... did you?

Hmm, maybe you're thinking about the website, give me a second.

THE ELDER SCROLLS. ONLINE! – Adventure in Tamriel with your friends and guild mates for the first time ever.
PLAY THE WAY YOU LIKE – Develop your own style with deep character customization and abilities.
MASSIVE PVP BATTLES – Fight for your alliance against enemy armies of hundreds across the battlefields of Cyrodiil.
SAVE TAMRIEL – Unravel the schemes of Molag Bal and protect the world from the dark forces of Oblivion.

Nope... didn't see anything about the justice system, or any systems that weren't in the game at launch.

Tell you what, you link to where they actually advertised the justice system, and then you can say, "AH HAH! I HAS PROOFS FO TEH FALS ADVERSIZING!" Just link it, an actual ad, not, like, a developer blog, where they said, "hey, we're working on this thing."

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Malpherian wrote: »

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).

Please pull up an official advertisement or post that was a lie about the in-game content.

Hint: the Justice System was never on the box.

Ysne58 · January 2015

Assuming for the moment that there is some kind of valid legal complaint (and I'm not sure there is) the next issue a lawyer would look at is what are the damages. Since ZOS is giving out crowns as part of the new sub system -- there may not be anything and even if there is, the amount is so miniscule that only a class action would be feasible. How big is the potential class? The economics for filing anything is just not in favor of it.

Yes we were lied to. Yes that is unethical.

Does it rise to the level of a violation of our rights (contractual, warranty or whatever)? I fail to see where the damages are that would give rise to a case a lawyer would want to risk being, unless that lawyer is right out of law school and doesn't yet know how the system works -- that lawyer would not have the resources to keep the case going either.

The fact is ZOS has lost good will as a result of it's unethical conduct. ZOS is very aware of this fact. ZOS so far does not seem to care. ZOS should care because their entire future in the MMO market is at risk, not just ESO.

Personally, I believe this game will go Pay to Win before long. I do not believe anything they say anymore about their plans vs. what will actually happen.

olemanwinter · January 2015

Sharee wrote: »

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.

Okay, point taken. Allow me to adjust my analogy.

You go to what looks like a nice restaurant with table cloths, order a $60 bottle of wine and a $30 steak. Meanwhile sets a sign outside that says FREE FOOD FOR ALL, no shirt or shoes required. Suddenly the restaurant is full, to the point of overflowing with people just standing around. One guy is sitting on your table with his @ss next to your bread. Another guy is standing above your date looking down her shirt. You can't even find the waiter for the sea of rabble milling around waiting for whatever free scraps they can get.

But yes, the wine and steak you paid $90 for will be given to you eventually.

Should you be able to get a refund and leave BEFORE it arrives at your table?

** to be clear, I'm talking specifically about people who are subscribing in advance and having it automatically converted to the new sub with no chance of a refund. This has nothing to do with money spent on previous game time.

Sharee · January 2015

olemanwinter wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

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.

Okay, point taken. Allow me to adjust my analogy.

You go to what looks like a nice restaurant with table cloths, order a $60 bottle of wine and a $30 steak. Meanwhile sets a sign outside that says FREE FOOD FOR ALL, no shirt or shoes required. Suddenly the restaurant is full, to the point of overflowing with people just standing around. One guy is sitting on your table with his @ss next to your bread. Another guy is standing above your date looking down her shirt. You can't even find the waiter for the sea of rabble milling around waiting for whatever free scraps they can get.

But yes, the wine and steak you paid $90 for will be given to you eventually.

Should you be able to get a refund and leave BEFORE it arrives at your table?

** to be clear, I'm talking specifically about people who are subscribing in advance and having it automatically converted to the new sub with no chance of a refund. This has nothing to do with money spent on previous game time.

First, this case (as described above) would only be applicable to the subscription time you have already paid, lasting from the point when the game goes B2P to the point when your sub expires. So no 'i've played for six months, i demand six months refunded'. [You won't get your money back from the restaurant for the meals you ate there yesterday and the day before]

Then, to get a case, you would have to prove that the non-subscribers are disrupting your game experience just as much as in your analogy. Which could be problematic: how are you going to prove before the court that the non-subscribers behave worse than the subscribers? What exactly it is that the non-subscribers do, and the subscribers don't, that is bothering you?

Good luck with getting the court to agree with you. Especially since it is an online experience where you can pretty much ignore the other players(unlike the restaurant example).

starkerealm · January 2015

olemanwinter wrote: »

Should you be able to get a refund and leave BEFORE it arrives at your table?

Yeah, but to mutilate this metaphor with common sense, you've been eating for almost a year now.

lathbury · January 2015

Pro rata refufunds could be granted now they have stated the pace of updates is changing from what was advertised with the new model. To use the restraunt analogy someone chose if they said our meals more expensive then the competition because you would have your meal on the table within 5 minutes. Then after you paid said yeah it's gonna be half an hour its a bait and switch.

lathbury · January 2015

I will have a lot of time left after the change and you can bet I'll be pursuing a pro rata refund for the remaining time. The fact that they lied by omission when asked about b2p and the removal of 6 month subs is enough to make thier actions unlawful under my country's consumer laws (UK).
We also have a body called the office of fair trading who Persue these things on behalf of customers.

Xjcon · January 2015

This thread is laughable. So much energy in to 14.99$. Who is willing to pay a lawyer to refund them such little money?

ashlee17 · January 2015

More food for thought.
The ACCC has this advice for companies.

Offer your customers a refund

You should offer a refund to any customer who made the decision to purchase your product or service based on a false, misleading or deceptive claim they saw on your social media page.

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/advertising-promoting-your-business/social-media

eisberg · January 2015

Wording would makes a big difference, and something stated as a plan and advertising can be a fine line.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

There are laws in most countries against false advertising.
Many people would not have bought the game if it wasn't for articles like these:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/elder-scrolls-online-defends-subscription-fee-with-regular-significant-content/1100-6418221/

http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/21/4643856/elder-scrolls-online-monthly-subscription

It was one of their core selling point and part of their marketing strategy prelaunch. And they contradict it by adding a cash shop with cosmetics and switching models.
How can we customers expect the experience to stay the same when the devs themselves said it wouldn't work for ESO to not be subscription only.

It is neither petty nor greedy to want to stand up for your rights.

Not to mention it is our duty as MMO players. Each time we allow a publisher to use underhand tactics like that to cash in on early adopters and then dump them, we encourage others to do the same.
It's a vicious cycle and in the end, no one will buy MMOs at launch because it would be stupid not to wait. Publishers will not make their money back and no investor will want to invest in the industry.
Everyone involved loses.

I personally don't want to get reimbursed. I want ESO to keep growing and become the game I was sold it would become. And for that, I need ZOS to hold true to their word and not switch models.
If they go through with it, then I'll take whatever recourse I can.

Iago · January 2015

Sharee wrote: »

Malpherian wrote: »

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).

Justice system was on the box? That would surprise me. Got a picture? (i bought digital)

where on the box? I dug out my Imperial edition pre order and couldn't find the justice system listed on there. where should I look?

eisberg · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

There are laws in most countries against false advertising.
Many people would not have bought the game if it wasn't for articles like these:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/elder-scrolls-online-defends-subscription-fee-with-regular-significant-content/1100-6418221/

http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/21/4643856/elder-scrolls-online-monthly-subscription

It was one of their core selling point and part of their marketing strategy prelaunch. And they contradict it by adding a cash shop with cosmetics and switching models.
How can we customers expect the experience to stay the same when the devs themselves said it wouldn't work for ESO to not be subscription only.

It is neither petty nor greedy to want to stand up for your rights.

Not to mention it is our duty as MMO players. Each time we allow a publisher to use underhand tactics like that to cash in on early adopters and then dump them, we encourage others to do the same.
It's a vicious cycle and in the end, no one will buy MMOs at launch because it would be stupid not to wait. Publishers will not make their money back and no investor will want to invest in the industry.
Everyone involved loses.

I personally don't want to get reimbursed. I want ESO to keep growing and become the game I was sold it would become. And for that, I need ZOS to hold true to their word and not switch models.
If they go through with it, then I'll take whatever recourse I can.

Yeah, it is changing, and there is nothing to stop it. So many other MMOs have done the same exact thing, said the same thing, and not one thing has ever been done by any coutries laws to "protect" the consumer. So yeah, good luck.

Fact is, they should have never gone with the subscription model in the first place, so many people both professionals with in the gaming industry and the gamers said it would change model with in a year, and they said that with confidence. Anybody who didn't expect this, have not been paying attention to the industry, and Zenimax were naive to think this model would actually work for them. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Conan are bigger IPs then Elder Scrolls is, what made them think theirs was going to be so special?

Ysne58 · January 2015

Personally, I'm pretty sure they planned to do this before the even launched the game. They have been lying about their intent to remain pay to play all along.

eisberg · January 2015

Ysne58 wrote: »

Personally, I'm pretty sure they planned to do this before the even launched the game. They have been lying about their intent to remain pay to play all along.

What makes you think that?

Malpherian · January 2015

Sharee wrote: »

Malpherian wrote: »

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).

Justice system was on the box? That would surprise me. Got a picture? (i bought digital)

It stated something about an emergent system for crime and punishment etc, it did not outright say "Justice system" but the description of the feature listed was a "Duh". It may have been on one of the manuals advertisement things on the inside that came with it rather then on the box itself I can't remember, but I know it was there somewhere as I remember going *** YEA when I read it. And then was severely disappointed when I read on the forums/website that it wasn't in game yet.
(I also purchased the imperial edition)

Vis · January 2015

Just let this thread die already. We've all said our peace on the matter. Those who wanted to inform others of their rights have succeeded . Those who disagree have expressed their disbelief. I,Iike most who disputed, have already received my temporary reimbursement from the cc while they carry out their 60 day investigation. If we lose or win is of no real concern to others on the forum. So again, let the thread sink already.

eisberg · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

Just let this thread die already. We've all said our peace on the matter. Those who wanted to inform others of their rights have succeeded . Those who disagree have expressed their disbelief. I,Iike most who disputed, have already received my temporary reimbursement from the cc while they carry out their 60 day investigation. If we lose or win is of no real concern to others on the forum. So again, let the thread sink already.

Did you even bother to contact customer support and talk to someone from there? Or did you go straight to your Credit Card company?

So basically you commited fraud by getting reimbursed for time you already spent in the game. Congrats.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

There are laws in most countries against false advertising.
Many people would not have bought the game if it wasn't for articles like these:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/elder-scrolls-online-defends-subscription-fee-with-regular-significant-content/1100-6418221/

http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/21/4643856/elder-scrolls-online-monthly-subscription

It was one of their core selling point and part of their marketing strategy prelaunch. And they contradict it by adding a cash shop with cosmetics and switching models.
How can we customers expect the experience to stay the same when the devs themselves said it wouldn't work for ESO to not be subscription only.

It is neither petty nor greedy to want to stand up for your rights.

Not to mention it is our duty as MMO players. Each time we allow a publisher to use underhand tactics like that to cash in on early adopters and then dump them, we encourage others to do the same.
It's a vicious cycle and in the end, no one will buy MMOs at launch because it would be stupid not to wait. Publishers will not make their money back and no investor will want to invest in the industry.
Everyone involved loses.

I personally don't want to get reimbursed. I want ESO to keep growing and become the game I was sold it would become. And for that, I need ZOS to hold true to their word and not switch models.
If they go through with it, then I'll take whatever recourse I can.

Yeah, it is changing, and there is nothing to stop it. So many other MMOs have done the same exact thing, said the same thing, and not one thing has ever been done by any coutries laws to "protect" the consumer. So yeah, good luck.

Fact is, they should have never gone with the subscription model in the first place, so many people both professionals with in the gaming industry and the gamers said it would change model with in a year, and they said that with confidence. Anybody who didn't expect this, have not been paying attention to the industry, and Zenimax were naive to think this model would actually work for them. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Conan are bigger IPs then Elder Scrolls is, what made them think theirs was going to be so special?

This is not entirely true.
While we could have seen it coming, I don't think we should feel naive for believing in a company's core selling point.

And it was not a mistake to launch as a subscription game. Quite the contrary. This switch to the b2p/f2p model is the mistake.
All other games, including gw2, know a massive drop of revenue every year, they get layoffs, slower updates or of lesser quality/size. Games become no names once they make those switches.

On another hand, while not all subscription games are doing well, the only games that do grow and have increases in revenue and playerbase are subscription based. Eve Online and FFXIV are the poster children of this trend.

If we go back to GW2, the parent company has known increased profits despite GW2 losing 20-30% revenue yearly because they have a subscription only game that still pulls 1M subscription after 16 years of being released. Lineage 1 is the prince.

The industry "specialists" are either full of it or plain ignorant.

Nyghthowler · January 2015

Someone be merciful and put this horse....er, I mean thread out of it's misery.

AngryNord · January 2015

Nyghthowler wrote: »

Someone be merciful and put this horse....er, I mean thread out of it's misery.

*starts sharpening Axe*

eisberg · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

There are laws in most countries against false advertising.
Many people would not have bought the game if it wasn't for articles like these:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/elder-scrolls-online-defends-subscription-fee-with-regular-significant-content/1100-6418221/

http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/21/4643856/elder-scrolls-online-monthly-subscription

It was one of their core selling point and part of their marketing strategy prelaunch. And they contradict it by adding a cash shop with cosmetics and switching models.
How can we customers expect the experience to stay the same when the devs themselves said it wouldn't work for ESO to not be subscription only.

It is neither petty nor greedy to want to stand up for your rights.

Not to mention it is our duty as MMO players. Each time we allow a publisher to use underhand tactics like that to cash in on early adopters and then dump them, we encourage others to do the same.
It's a vicious cycle and in the end, no one will buy MMOs at launch because it would be stupid not to wait. Publishers will not make their money back and no investor will want to invest in the industry.
Everyone involved loses.

I personally don't want to get reimbursed. I want ESO to keep growing and become the game I was sold it would become. And for that, I need ZOS to hold true to their word and not switch models.
If they go through with it, then I'll take whatever recourse I can.

Yeah, it is changing, and there is nothing to stop it. So many other MMOs have done the same exact thing, said the same thing, and not one thing has ever been done by any coutries laws to "protect" the consumer. So yeah, good luck.

Fact is, they should have never gone with the subscription model in the first place, so many people both professionals with in the gaming industry and the gamers said it would change model with in a year, and they said that with confidence. Anybody who didn't expect this, have not been paying attention to the industry, and Zenimax were naive to think this model would actually work for them. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Conan are bigger IPs then Elder Scrolls is, what made them think theirs was going to be so special?

This is not entirely true.
While we could have seen it coming, I don't think we should feel naive for believing in a company's core selling point.

And it was not a mistake to launch as a subscription game. Quite the contrary. This switch to the b2p/f2p model is the mistake.
All other games, including gw2, know a massive drop of revenue every year, they get layoffs, slower updates or of lesser quality/size. Games become no names once they make those switches.

On another hand, while not all subscription games are doing well, the only games that do grow and have increases in revenue and playerbase are subscription based. Eve Online and FFXIV are the poster children of this trend.

If we go back to GW2, the parent company has known increased profits despite GW2 losing 20-30% revenue yearly because they have a subscription only game that still pulls 1M subscription after 16 years of being released. Lineage 1 is the prince.

The industry "specialists" are either full of it or plain ignorant.

Again, with Guild Wars 1, of course it had a major drop off after the first year, that was the year it sold 3.5 million games. Can't expect it to sell much more after that. At the same time that game is still on the brick and mortar store shelves, yet ESO seems to drop from the store shelves a long time ago. IF a game doesn't sell well, they stop carrying it, Guild Wars 2 even after 29 month is still selling sell enough to keep on the shelves. Their revenue after the first year has actually been pretty steady. Also, they have not slowed down their updates at all. 16 Updates in the first year, 19 updates the second year, 7 updates for the last 5 months (total 29 months since launch). These are content and added feature updates, does not include the patches they have done.

Arenanet had no layoffs with Guild Wars 2, in fact they had to hire more people
Lineage is an ultra popular game in South Korea, it is basically WoW of South Korea. Guild Wars 2 isn't even sold in South Korea, only sold in NA, EU, and China. South Korea is one of the biggest MMO markets, and Guild Wars 2 is not even in it. Also, speaking of revenue, we do not know how much China is paying in Royalties, so your 20-30% if probably even more off. They also plan on moving to other regions, which will increase their revenue even more.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-01-14-you-thought-that-was-it-for-guild-wars-2

Again, highly doubt NC Soft would let Arenanet spend so much money, especially on the tournaments, if the game wasn't doing so well.

You show a couple games as poster children of the trend, should I show the huge list of poster children that shows a trend of subscription based MMOs dying?

But you are probably right, switching model is most likely a mistake, and ends up not being as good as it could have been game wise. Instead they should have gone for the B2P model in the first place, instead of the subscription model that has proven to fail for the vast majority of the AAA MMO games. they need to start off as B2P, design the game around that idea, have the players hyped up for the game around that idea, and then they would had much greater success. I am sure Elder Scrolls Online could have been on the brick and mortar store shelves still if they went with the B2P model.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

@eisberg‌

But the numbers I'm quoting are from second and third year.
It's revenue no longer coming from box sales but from the cash shop.

I suspect the brick and mortar thing to be due to the rebranding. They've been planing that for at least a few months, it would make sense to recall the boxes that would not clearly show the game is now b2p.
I doubt it has any connection to box sales going worse or better than current GW2 box sales.

For GW2 updates, yes they have a nice pace, and I do think their new idea of having living world content be unlocked if you're active, but be bought if you come back after it got released is pretty cool and fair business.
But those updates have been getting smaller. In the opinions of many, they aren't enough. Even I coming back after a year all I could say was "that's it?". And I'm an easy public, I was happy with ESO's velocity.

Don't missinterpret what I'm saying here as GW2 bashing, I find this game to be an interesting concept and respect it for what it tried to accomplish. But it just isn't all rainbows and unicorns, it suffers from its b2p status despite being the one that does it best.
Its revenue is sincerely nothing to scoff at, and as you pointed out it still has a lot of avenues to expand its market. This is most likely why NCSoft and ArenaNet still invest money in it.

But in its oldest market, the one that depends mostly on the cash shop, it is decreasing gradually, which is not what properly managed MMOs usualy do.
However, GW2 is well managed, so its limitation has to be in the chosen model.

A side not that occured to me thanks to your comments: the current playerbase are probably beta testing the game and paying for the expansion that will conquer those new market. They'll probably won't go in South Korea though. They don't want to compete with Lineage as the same publisher runs both and doesn't want to harm either games.

You show a couple games as poster children of the trend, should I show the huge list of poster children that shows a trend of subscription based MMOs dying?

I showed here only two, but I could show WoW that is growing a bit again now that it is focusing again on improving the game. I could talk about UO, Lineage, Darkfall and a few others lesser known that are still growing or doing surprisingly well after over a decade.

The point is, I can't show a f2p/b2p MMO that is growing. I can't find a single one not losing revenue in their current markets.

Subscription is not a guaranteed success, but it is the only known model that can work long term. Not every game makes it, but I'm convinced ESO can.
Or... well... could have.

And an aspect that is important to understand is that the AAA games that do conversions, and it is the same for ESO, are not doing it for failure.
The first ones that did, DDO, LOTRO, etc, perhaps did it because they saw no alternatives, but those recent games do it on purpose.

Why release b2p when you can release with a sub an make a lot more money for a few months? Then rebrand, switch to b2p and reign in all those that didn't want to pay a sub or were waiting for the b2p switch. Optionnally lower the price of the box first for more cash,then finally, switch to full f2p to have no barrier of entry to the cash shop and cash in on the final locust wave.
Then move on to another project while you let interns handle the game until it no longer has a positive cash flow.

ESO was advertising themselves as those that will break the trend. This got them a LOT more early adopters than they should have and it was marketing genius. Now, 8 month later, they anounce the switch to b2p so that the crowd of "we told you so" can feel smug by buying the game.
It's dishonest and a rippoff, but boy was it effective to get a nice quick buck.

Issue is, ESO was viable as a pure subscription thanks to its core following.
People have had no content for months, and yet, were still defending the game all over the net and staying subbed two weeks ago.
There even was an article I saw briefly pass called something along the lines of "ESO is being proven right with their chocie of subscription model" just one week before the anouncement. Players were returning and be agreably surprised. New players were trying the game, wondering why it got so much hate online. Even steam playign stats were showing double more actives since the 1.6 info dump livestream. The game was at a turning point, and they broke that momentum with the anouncement of b2p.
They've wasted an opportunity for more money. Especially with the console launch that would have at the very least trippled the susbcription base.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

Just let this thread die already. We've all said our peace on the matter. Those who wanted to inform others of their rights have succeeded . Those who disagree have expressed their disbelief. I,Iike most who disputed, have already received my temporary reimbursement from the cc while they carry out their 60 day investigation. If we lose or win is of no real concern to others on the forum. So again, let the thread sink already.

Well, at least you've left on an online record of your fraudulent activity.

No one has been informed of their rights. They've been, at best, misinformed about buyer's remorse being a protected status.

Malpherian wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Malpherian wrote: »

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).

Justice system was on the box? That would surprise me. Got a picture? (i bought digital)

It stated something about an emergent system for crime and punishment etc, it did not outright say "Justice system" but the description of the feature listed was a "Duh". It may have been on one of the manuals advertisement things on the inside that came with it rather then on the box itself I can't remember, but I know it was there somewhere as I remember going *** YEA when I read it. And then was severely disappointed when I read on the forums/website that it wasn't in game yet.
(I also purchased the imperial edition)

Wrong:

JaJaLuka · January 2015

OP - this is true and false.

You COULD argue that the product has changed, however at some point (I'll have to dig around a bit to find it again) ZoS did mention that by subscribing to ESO, they had the right to change the game/product without notice to the consumer. Also there is the copyright issue, ZoS still actually owns the game after you have brought it and changing the game so that you no longer actually have to pay for it after you buy it would get instantly laughed at because from a non-gamer's point of view they are doing you a favour.

Regarding the reasonable timeframe in Australia it can be a bit hazy due to implied warranties etc, saying that on average it's about two weeks.

If I'm honest I don't believe a refund would get put through as the game has been out for quite a while now as a pay to play hence they have fulfilled "the length of time for which it is reasonable for the product to be used".

Anyone making a judgment on this would probably throw it away instantly. ZoS is a business with people trying to make a living, the consumer is an annoyed customer with no real valid argument (in this case). There is a big difference between someone trying to make a living and someone annoyed by a computer game, consumer affairs DO take that into consideration before they force a refund.

c0rp · January 2015

As long as ZoS states somewhere..."online experience can change" they are fine. Im sure its in the ToS.

Tyr · January 2015

Digiman wrote: »

Honestly I don't see the huge deal. I am still going to subscribe to this game (Captain sinks with the ship), the new model is fine by my standards and will probably bring my friends and family back to playing this game as well as add new players to it.

At most all Australian law can do is force ZoS to provide refunds for the bought game to Australian customers or fine them severely. I don't see to many Aussies dumping this game outright for a refund. I also think posters saying its unfair to ZoS because the said customers "enjoyed" a "satisfactory" experience of the game obviously shouldn't argue that considering this state of the game when it launched through this year.

Hell even reviews can support that this game was very unsatisfactory and costly to play. Since the product changed when bought while advertised to Australians as something else it was breech of law in that country.

Personally before, I would only recommend the game to die hard ES fans with money to burn. Now it seems things are changing

It seems more attractive then SWTOR current method, where thats more suitable for casual short term playing over long term play.

Anyway I would doubt any Australians are going to seek out refunds in force. The new system seems to compensate customers very well for their subscription time and if your an Aussie gamer who has still been playing this game from launch your obviously not going to leave considering the history of experience we had with this game.

ashlee17 wrote: »

T and C doesn't trump consumer protection laws.

No ToS or CoD or other online agreement box can trump commercial law. They are mainly used to explain away dismissals of service to users and protect against people who breech copyright laws. They are not a binding contract and can't breech law.

NO they ARE a binding contract, but so called "consumer protection" laws allow you to break binding contracts under certain circumstances.

Korah_Eaglecry · January 2015

Malpherian wrote: »

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).

Please provide links to these lies and false advertisements. Id love to see what you have as proof.