How did they mislead you? How was the information provided misleading? And you do know that they said devlopment of dust will keep going, so that pretty much nullifies any law suite you have. You do remember that just because you found a random law, that you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were mislead. From what i know, however, you were not. Spending money, and assuming its going to devlope and add new things to dust, was on you. Unless ccp told you, spacificly, that if you but this stuff it will bring you XXX then you were not misled. Case dismissed you lose.

I'd be reasonably confident that the law would be applied to each purchase, rather than to all your Dust purchases as a whole. So you paid for Aurum, and got Aurum, as described in the product literature. Or you paid for a booster, and got that.

What you probably haven't done, in the eyes of the law, is paid for Dust itself based on any kind of binding longevity promise.

How did they mislead you? How was the information provided misleading? And you do know that they said devlopment of dust will keep going, so that pretty much nullifies any law suite you have. You do remember that just because you found a random law, that you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were mislead. From what i know, however, you were not. Spending money, and assuming its going to devlope and add new things to dust, was on you. Unless ccp told you, spacificly, that if you but this stuff it will bring you XXX then you were not misled. Case dismissed you lose.

"A misleading action occurs when a practice misleads through the information it contains, or its deceptive presentation, and causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision". So the outlines of a case would be:

1. Over the last several months CCP provided misleading information/deceptively presented information (e.g. 'laser-focused on PS3').
2. This resulted in consumers making different decisions than they otherwise would (e.g. to buy AUR).
3. Therefore, a misleading action has occurred and consumer protection regulations have been breached.

There is no need for any 'binding longevity promise' or anything of the sort. All that is required is that misleading/deceptively presented information was provided at some stage, which materially impacted on consumers' decisions.

People have already been refunded based upon THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP ME GOD - AMEN

'Laser-focused on PS3' - somewhat misleading, no?

Regarding reasonable doubt, that standard is only required in criminal cases. The standard in civil cases is the balance of probabilities. I get the impression that I have a rather firmer grasp of UK law than you do.

Sony is responsible for all transactions on their network laugh as you may but legal action is being brought on Sony regarding this issue. I suspect sony will settle all disputes and internally deal with CCP. Sony is taking this very serious they understand the value of consumer confidence and have built the playstation brand on that principle. They do not want there reputation dragged through the mud based on a third party developer overly entitled neckbeards throwing a hissy fit

"A misleading action occurs when a practice misleads through the information it contains, or its deceptive presentation, and causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision". So the outlines of a case would be:

1. Over the last several months CCP provided misleading information/deceptively presented information (e.g. 'laser-focused on PS3').
2. This resulted in consumers making different decisions than they otherwise would (e.g. to buy AUR).
3. Therefore, a misleading action has occurred and consumer protection regulations have been breached.

There is no need for any 'binding longevity promise' or anything of the sort. All that is required is that misleading/deceptively presented information was provided at some stage, which materially impacted on consumers' decisions.

FTFY

Actually, they did give a explicit time.

10 Years.

So expecting companies to follow the law is overly entitled?

I really hope you never run for a political office that holds power...

Actually, they did give a explicit time.

10 Years.

"A misleading action occurs when a practice misleads through the information it contains, or its deceptive presentation, and causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision". So the outlines of a case would be:

1. Over the last several months CCP provided misleading information/deceptively presented information (e.g. 'laser-focused on PS3').
2. This resulted in consumers making different decisions than they otherwise would (e.g. to buy AUR).
3. Therefore, a misleading action has occurred and consumer protection regulations have been breached.

There is no need for any 'binding longevity promise' or anything of the sort. All that is required is that misleading/deceptively presented information was provided at some stage, which materially impacted on consumers' decisions.

no they didn't. That is again, marketing jargon. So can you sue Black Phrophacys devolper for killing an mmo that bombed becuase they said there will be updates for years to come? no.

Did you spcaificly buy aurum, becuase of the 'we will devlope for ps3 for 10 years' if you did then i think i have a bridge to show you. as anyone with since would of looked at that and gone 'wait the ps4 just came out...

No, thats called marketing jargon. And because they looked at what dust was and changed stratigies thats on them. This is like you buying a pinto and expecting ford to make a pinto mark two, so you bought the pinto thinking they will use the money to get you a pinto, if they can the pinto, well thats your problem.

You can play dust, even if they told you they were going to bring stuff soon(tm) and are lazor focused on ps3, at the time of said statement they prolly were lazor focused on ps3. Then they decided as a company to change gears. They do not need to tell you they are changing gears. As you are playing dust because its dust. If you are playing dust for the hope of what it might be, then thats on you. As you have to look at the product at face value. Unless they said "We are bringing you the player market on may 14th 2014, so but your gear now to prepair for that" That is a misleading statement. And a flat out lie. its also used as bait for you to spend your money. On the contrary, if you went to get into dust and one of the things on the offical website, by an offical member of ccp said "Dust has a fully functioning player market! come spend XXX to use it" and you bought dust and aurum for that reason, before you got into the game, then you have a case.

It doesn;t matter if they tell you that you will be gods soon(tm) and able to fire lazor beams out your butt. As long as they don;t give you an explicite date you still lose. A promise =! a guarentee. Thats the difference. And its a free game, you CHOSE to spend money. If you did not do your research into what CCP has stated for eve, and failed to deliver, thats on you. So again, none of this was misleading to anyone. For all they have to do, is show a memo saying in march they are focused on ps3, then another in april givin the reasons why they have to get off the ps3. And they are fine. as 'lazor focused' is just a marketing tool.

So can you show where they said "Hey guys, you are getting XXX on this exact date yyy" and because of this information, you went out and bought aurum?

One more point. If you coudl sue for marketing terms, there are a ton of game companies you can sue. You can;t however, as there was no spacifics. What does 'lazor focused on ps3' mean? And the fact is, if they keep making updates that they can for dust, then they are technically lazor focused.

How did they mislead us?

Just read this thread.

You could well be right. Personally I still doubt it would work out like that if it were tested in court, but even if you could convince me it still wouldn't matter.

What you need to do is convince Sony/CCP that there is enough of a risk that you're right that they decide to avoid that risk by paying you off. Or, you need to be so convinced yourself that you are willing to pay the price of litigating it.

People don't realize that in America, CCP most likely could be prosecuted for there product misrepresentation.

Of course, this is why they don't set one foot in America with DUST 514 and pretty much not with EVE (not sure about what they have going at their California office). Maybe if it was WoD there would have been legal recourse.

I'm assuming that though the company has satellite offices in America it can't be prosecuted through those since the game and company HQ is in Iceland and China.

If there is any possibility I'd love any lawyer types to find the loophole.