|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
156
   |
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:I'm not sure you are allowed to post GM conversations here, so careful with that.
Also, are you sure that CCP weren't simply telling you that the mechanics of a cash refund had to go through Sony? You give cash to Sony and they give cash to CCP. If you want the cash back, you get it back from Sony and they get it back from CCP. Maybe Sony contacted CCP and said "this guy wants his cash back, is that OK with you?" and they said "yep, we've already been in contact with him and it is OK".
I imagine CCP lose the cash either way, and they are comfortable with this because their strategy is now to discourage BPO ownership and use.
In other words, are you assuming malice where there isn't any?
Oh? Is that why ccp went out of their way to advertise packs that contained bpo's and told us to "get them before they're off the market"? Doesn't seem very "discouraging" to me.
Also to all you people who defend ccp by crying "EULA": the EULA isn't considered legal in all countries. So it Doesn't matter if you signed or agreed to something as a consumer, because if it's not recognised by the laws of the country you live in, then any kind of contract is automatically void. |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
157
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:R F Gyro wrote:I'm not sure you are allowed to post GM conversations here, so careful with that.
Also, are you sure that CCP weren't simply telling you that the mechanics of a cash refund had to go through Sony? You give cash to Sony and they give cash to CCP. If you want the cash back, you get it back from Sony and they get it back from CCP. Maybe Sony contacted CCP and said "this guy wants his cash back, is that OK with you?" and they said "yep, we've already been in contact with him and it is OK".
I imagine CCP lose the cash either way, and they are comfortable with this because their strategy is now to discourage BPO ownership and use.
In other words, are you assuming malice where there isn't any? Oh? Is that why ccp went out of their way to advertise packs that contained bpo's and told us to "get them before they're off the market"? Doesn't seem very "discouraging" to me. Eh? Out of all I wrote you chose to pick up on "discouraging BPO ownership"? You could remove everything in that sentence after "comfortable with this" and it wouldn't affect my point at all. Quote:Also to all you people who defend ccp by crying "EULA": the EULA isn't considered legal in all countries. So it Doesn't matter if you signed or agreed to something as a consumer, because if it's not recognised by the laws of the country you live in, then any kind of contract is automatically void. By "you people" I assume you are addressing other people rather than me, so this paragraph is not in response to my post.
Then tell me how they "discourage" us when they purposefully advertise for us to buy bpo's?
"you people" = plural = no one in specific. |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
157
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ankbar Latrommi wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:Also to all you people who defend ccp by crying "EULA": the EULA isn't considered legal in all countries. So it Doesn't matter if you signed or agreed to something as a consumer, because if it's not recognised by the laws of the country you live in, then any kind of contract is automatically void. And your word is also worthless, because regardless of the legalities in your particular country, you as an individual agreed to the EULA. If you don't like it, don't agree to it and don't play the game. If you want to make an argument how EULA's should be simpler and in plain speech, I'll agree. But an agreement is an agreement, unless you support a culture of dishonesty with no real basis for trust.
It doesn't matter if I as an individual accepted x or y. My countrys laws takes precedence to any bullshitw counter claim of corporations saying that I agreed to their bogus "contract".
If I took this to court and sued them for false and misleading advertisment then I would win. Their EULA bullshit wouldn't hold up in court at all because ccp has by definition made themselves guilty of misleading advertisment in regards to bpo's (a little fine print line in the EULA dosen't outweigh a massive marketing campaign thats obviously misleading to the customer in my country, which is how it should be)
I support any culture that rightfully sticks it to corporations using dishonest and underhanded business-tactics like ccp have done. So you're not in any position of lecturing me about ethics on the matter. |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
158
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ankbar Latrommi wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:It doesn't matter if I as an individual accepted x or y. My countrys laws takes precedence to any bullshitw counter claim of corporations saying that I agreed to their bogus "contract". If you feel it's okay to use any excuse to dodge personal responsibility, I don't really care what else you have to say. Your morals are far enough different than mine that it's apples and bricks. I won't support any such position, and in fact would enjoy anyone dodging personal responsibility getting screwed. What can I say, I'm a sinner.
More like corporate slave if you ask me.
You can't claim "personal responsibility" if your antagonist have purposefully decieved you (like ccp has done)
Corporations serve a purpose sometimes, but they are also the enemy of supreme states, and needs to be kept on a tight Leah by government and laws. The tighter, the better. |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
159
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
THE GREY CARDINAL wrote:I love how people talk about how they have standards yet often still engage with the products of these "evil and shady corporations."  Oh yeah, great integrity to those standards. If I truly felt that a company was an dodgy/shady/**** I would boycott them and their services like I did with Capcom after the on disc DLC news and the destruction of many of it's key franchises. So many stupid tools on these forums talk about how **** the game is, how CCP are liars, crooks, useless etc...and yet they stay. Maybe they're dumbass trolls or mentally weak people who are enslaved to the monetary and/ or time investment they've made in the game and can't bring themselves to walk away from it, or maybe they stay 'for the community'. Whatever, if you aren't willing to stand behind your convictions, talking the talk but bing too much of a ***** to walk the walk then kindly STFU because no one really cares to hear you waffle on about you and your opinions.  So weak, idiots.
Aww, felt better after that pat on your own shoulder?
From a meta-political view, a boycott is largely useless since a few people boycotting a company will only marginally hurt their profits. It's not a very effective strategy to make them change their ways.
More effective strategies include lawsuits, disclosing information to the press, slander etc. Anything that will bring third parties into the situation and serve to discourage other people from generating profits to the company in question.
It's a questio of effectiveness really. Also personally I've never said that this game is **** (in fact I recently started a thread giving some credit to the developers), that doesn't mean that I have to approve of shady business-tactics on ccp's part.
If you make a really tasty cake it doesn't excuse you from stabbing a baby with a pencil. But regardless of how heinous it might be to hurt a baby, it doesen't by definition make your skill in bakery bad. |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 05:10:00 -
[6] - Quote
Henchmen21 wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:Ankbar Latrommi wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:It doesn't matter if I as an individual accepted x or y. My countrys laws takes precedence to any bullshitw counter claim of corporations saying that I agreed to their bogus "contract". If you feel it's okay to use any excuse to dodge personal responsibility, I don't really care what else you have to say. Your morals are far enough different than mine that it's apples and bricks. I won't support any such position, and in fact would enjoy anyone dodging personal responsibility getting screwed. What can I say, I'm a sinner. More like corporate slave if you ask me. You can't claim "personal responsibility" if your antagonist have purposefully decieved you (like ccp has done) Corporations serve a purpose sometimes, but they are also the enemy of supreme states, and needs to be kept on a tight Leash by government and laws. The tighter, the better. Wait governments can be trusted? What world do you live in?
I trust a democratically elected government over some greedy, self-serving capitalist ******* any day of the week.
The only logical conclusion of a completely "free market" without any kind of government intervention is monopoly and cartel-forming. The strongest corporate entities eventually consume and absorb the smaller, weaker ones until there is only one single Corporate entity left that owns all the means of production and all viable surface of land that supports the means of production.
And without a supreme democratic government to stop them, they'll eventually dabble in "different business ventures" like corporate security, private military endavours, arms manufacturing etc. But not with the goal to safeguard public interests or maintaining a democratic process. No, they would form their own armies purely for their own interests.
This is what the oh so glorified "free market" would lead to in the end. Therefore market-independent governments are needed to keep private capitalistic ambitions on a tight leash and at gunpoint.
You should be allowed to build companies that facilitate goods and services to the people, but that's as far as a non-democratically elected entity should be allowed to go. Amassing capital on sovreign government soil to such an extentw that you rival with the governments capital should be strictly forbidden, and upstart individuals who attempt to do so needs to be crushed as the threat to society that they are.
I elected a president, senator, parliament councilman or whatever. Regardless of how rich or poor I may be, I still had the power and a constitutional right to partake in deciding that these people got their power.
We do not, however get to choose or elect the board of directors or shareholders of, for example: the major banking institutions of the world. And considering how many people have been royally buttfucked by said institutions recently, i'm sure you can understand my sentiments towards capitalist scum/"liberals" and why I am less likely to trust them over a government that I at least could take part in electing. |
|
|
| |
|