UrQuan wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

But what do I know, apparently I'm too young to understand such things.

Now you tell me. *Goes back being the creepy old guy.*

To be fair, there might be a novel argument that, in spite of what the ToS dictate, cash shop currencies are not, in and of themselves, a "streamed or downloaded" product. Since it's simply a credit applied to your account, and not actually downloaded to your system, like a game, film, or other piece of digital media. But, you'd burn way more money testing that, then you'd get back.

You could make that argument, but it hasn't been successfully done so far. So far the consensus has been that if a cash shop currency can be traded or exchanged for anything in the real world then real world currency laws can be applied to it. If it can't (as crowns can't) then digital content laws apply to it.

Which is, more or less, why I called it a novel argument. Since, as far as I know, the EU customer protection laws don't specify cash shop currencies at all. To be fair, I was simply thinking they wouldn't qualify for the digital exemptions, not that they'd legally be considered currencies. Either way, it's the kind of argument that can make consumer tort classes entertaining, not the kind of thing you'd actually expect to see someone successfully argue in court.

UrQuan wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

But what do I know, apparently I'm too young to understand such things.

Now you tell me. *Goes back being the creepy old guy.*

To be fair, there might be a novel argument that, in spite of what the ToS dictate, cash shop currencies are not, in and of themselves, a "streamed or downloaded" product. Since it's simply a credit applied to your account, and not actually downloaded to your system, like a game, film, or other piece of digital media. But, you'd burn way more money testing that, then you'd get back.

You could make that argument, but it hasn't been successfully done so far. So far the consensus has been that if a cash shop currency can be traded or exchanged for anything in the real world then real world currency laws can be applied to it. If it can't (as crowns can't) then digital content laws apply to it.

Which is, more or less, why I called it a novel argument. Since, as far as I know, the EU customer protection laws don't specify cash shop currencies at all. To be fair, I was simply thinking they wouldn't qualify for the digital exemptions, not that they'd legally be considered currencies. Either way, it's the kind of argument that can make consumer tort classes entertaining, not the kind of thing you'd actually expect to see someone successfully argue in court.

Agreed. And as far as I'm aware the thing about applying real world currency laws to digital currencies if they can be exchanged for real world goods/services/currencies has only been done in a handful of cases. I'm pretty sure it's been applied to Second Life's digital currency a number of times...

Yeah, Second Life's the only counter example I know of. And, even there, I can't remember the details. IIRC there was something about how the currency could be cashed out for real currency, or could be sold to other players, that kicked it over. But, like I said, I can't remember the exact details.

Radburn wrote: »

Anyone know how long the Crowns will be on sale? I don't get home from work until 11:30 pst tonight...

According to the email I received the Crown packs for the PC version will be on sale until the 14th, I'm guessing until 10:00AM EST as usual for limited time items in the Crown store.

Hoylegu wrote: »

A good company would compensate you the difference IMHO.

No.