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

starkerealm · January 2015

Tyr wrote: »

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.

^ This.

Also, with MMO subscriptions, each renewal payment can sometimes be considered to be an acceptance of the current status quo. So, if the state of the game changes, and you pay your monthly fee, you've effectively signed off on change.

There's probably an exception for cases like with The Old Republic, where they temporarily removed the ability to terminate your subscription right as the billing period was coming to a close due to "a glitch." But, I don't know of anyone really testing that.

EsORising · January 2015

Nijjion wrote: »

With the game being as described for nearly a year, I don't think this can apply.

Also not forgetting a lot of Australians bought the game from other countries, meaning Australians laws don't count.

That's an excellent point. No offense to aussies but you signed (or check marked) a EULA somewhere along the line for a North American server that falls under those laws.

I don't see any refunds in the future unless you bought the game from austrailia and go directly to the person that sold it to you.

starkerealm · January 2015

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

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.

I can already tell you, if you're curious. They're trying to argue that the dev blogs, miscellaneous interviews, and work in progress announcements are "advertisements."

jluceyub17_ESO · January 2015

I have a hard time seeing how you can make a convincing argument that the B2P change constitutes a "major change" in a service that would have "stopped someone from buying it if they'd known". Your argument would come down to: Yes I bought this service expecting to have to pay $15 a month, and now they are providing me with a substantially similar service for free. Good luck holding a straight face through that.

Edit: typo