Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
632
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:36:00 -
[151] - Quote
Winscar Shinobi wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:All items purchased are under Sony's TOS, Sony reserves the right to change their TOS at their discretion at any time, you agree to those terms every time you use their first party services, last I checked that includes PSN. So... guess what? The terms on the Merc pack changed, tough luck.
You could always try getting a lawyer though, good luck. Yes, but when purchasing an item you agree to those terms at point of purchase. A term change only effects future purchases. Yeah, and one of the terms they agreed to was the fact that the terms are subject to change. |
Winscar Shinobi
Better Hide R Die
115
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:39:00 -
[152] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:Winscar Shinobi wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:All items purchased are under Sony's TOS, Sony reserves the right to change their TOS at their discretion at any time, you agree to those terms every time you use their first party services, last I checked that includes PSN. So... guess what? The terms on the Merc pack changed, tough luck.
You could always try getting a lawyer though, good luck. Yes, but when purchasing an item you agree to those terms at point of purchase. A term change only effects future purchases. Yeah, and one of the terms they agreed to was the fact that the terms are subject to change.
You don't understand laws well do you? |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
632
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:44:00 -
[153] - Quote
Winscar Shinobi wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:Winscar Shinobi wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:All items purchased are under Sony's TOS, Sony reserves the right to change their TOS at their discretion at any time, you agree to those terms every time you use their first party services, last I checked that includes PSN. So... guess what? The terms on the Merc pack changed, tough luck.
You could always try getting a lawyer though, good luck. Yes, but when purchasing an item you agree to those terms at point of purchase. A term change only effects future purchases. Yeah, and one of the terms they agreed to was the fact that the terms are subject to change. You don't understand laws well do you? Nope |
Winscar Shinobi
Better Hide R Die
115
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:52:00 -
[154] - Quote
Then why are you trying to argue something that you don't have a good knowledge of?
Oh wait I forgot this is the Internet XD |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
632
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:54:00 -
[155] - Quote
Winscar Shinobi wrote:Then why are you trying to argue something that you don't have a good knowledge of?
Oh wait I forgot this is the Internet XD Because I was bored, duh. |
Commercially Released
Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:58:00 -
[156] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote:Mithridates VI wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:Because you already received the benefits of the initial purchase. Did you use the 30 day booster that came with the merc pack? Give back any SP that you received thanks to boosters ( is their a way of tracking that? ), then we can talk refunds. At the moment it just sounds like closed beta testers want a 2 for 1 deal. The initial purchase was 1 x Mercenary Pack + these items credited to the account for each character reset and for commercial release. That's what was purchased. That's what the purchase agreement said and what people were told they were paying for. Treating this like the initial items were the purchase is missing the point. Exactly. Basically, it seems like Sloth is arguing that the Merc Pack was "too good of a deal" and that we shouldn't care that we are not GETTING the deal that the merc pack offered because recieving HALF of the deal is GOOD ENOUGH. Sorry Sloth, but that's CCP's fault, not mine. I bought the Merc Pack because I knew that once the Beta was OVER and all of the awesome LAUNCH stuff was in the game that I would get my AUR back and get another booster. That's what CCP offered and that's what I purchased. If it you believe it was an overly generous offer on their part, then take it up with CCP, but don't act like I'm being a **** for wanting them to honor the purchase that I made with my real world dollars. That's just ridiculous. They offered a "2 for 1 deal" not me, I bought the deal that THEY offered. It's not my fault they realized post-facto that they shouldn't have sold me what they sold me, they don't get to just remove half the deal after the fact.
This man gets it. |
Commercially Released
Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:00:00 -
[157] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote:also, just to clarify: CCP Eterne wrote: We are not in Commercial Release. Any statements of such from a GM was inaccurate.
posted TODAY
These words have been posted before. CCP Etene is just as likely to know the truth as the Lead GM, both answer to the same legal and marketing team. What I do know is the GM checked before answering, while Etene gave the impression this was his first investigation into the matter. |
Bogon Vdemotch
Expert Intervention Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:01:00 -
[158] - Quote
Gunner Nightingale wrote:calisk galern wrote:yay...these ass hats are going to force a server wipe...thanks for that >.> Yay and ass hat over here prefers to bury their head in the sand rather then acknowledge CCP screwed up. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=642189#post642189Not everyone here is clamoring for an AUR refund. I sure as hell dont want one because i know what it inevitably would mean for them to do it. Point is CCP keeps going in circles and STILL has the original language of the TC at a different vendor. Add to this their continued commitement to no SP reset, only possible SP reimbursements in skill subsections affected by a content update and everything else this puts CCP in seriously murky water. Compound this with the TC make references to the EULA (a agreement that they can change at will and by us simply logging we tacitly agree to that agreement which they could but like WON'T ever use to wiggle out of this conundrum) and you have the makings of something that could utterly railroad and derail their project. Pretending that this is not a problem or dismissing players as ignorant, stupid or entitled makes you look even worse and clearly demonstrates your ignorance at the larger issue. The bury your head in the sand and hope(lock it until) it goes away doesnt solve the issue and will only get worse as time moves forward. 1. CCP needs to address the language of wheter this is or is not Commercial release 2. If it is still a beta CCP needs Gamestop to remove or update that disclaimer (as many of you claim its still beta) 3. If it is still a beta and there are no AURUM resets problem becomes they took money for an unfinished product. 4. You arguing that a person is stupid for spending money on an unfinished product and expecting reimbursement of IN GAME funds not ACTUAL REFUND OF MONEY clearly dont understand Consumer product law, you acting like this isn't an issue for CCP to worry about displays remarkable ignorance. Lastly demanding the RIGHTS i enjoy as a CONSUMER does indeed make me "entitled" what it doesnt make me is privileged or spoiled which is the word i think you're really looking for.
+40,000.
PROTIP: Hire a PR guy, CCP. You need one. Its amazing how fast these endless semantic boondoggles have alienated me from any trust in CCP.
|
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
135
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:02:00 -
[159] - Quote
The thing about refunding is that theoretically they would be giving away a LOT of free stuff. The raven assault suits.... the militia bpo's.... anything somebody bought using AUR after the price increase would essentially be given away if they refund the SP. So somebody might think, "ok so why dont they just take away what they bought using the AUR" but the problem with that is that it would be a huge mess with every closed beta tester ATM. The reason for that being is that part of our reward for being closed beta testers was the ability to buy the AUR items dirt cheap before they increased the prices on them. This and the fact that they cant revert "boosted" SP from the player makes it a really difficult decision as far as refunds go.
At the end of the day CCP is a business, and as any business i expect them to make whatever choice is more likely to make them/ save them more money in the end. |
Commercially Released
Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:13:00 -
[160] - Quote
Marston VC wrote:The thing about refunding is that theoretically they would be giving away a LOT of free stuff. The raven assault suits.... the militia bpo's.... anything somebody bought using AUR after the price increase would essentially be given away if they refund the SP. So somebody might think, "ok so why dont they just take away what they bought using the AUR" but the problem with that is that it would be a huge mess with every closed beta tester ATM. The reason for that being is that part of our reward for being closed beta testers was the ability to buy the AUR items dirt cheap before they increased the prices on them. This and the fact that they cant revert "boosted" SP from the player makes it a really difficult decision as far as refunds go.
At the end of the day CCP is a business, and as any business i expect them to make whatever choice is more likely to make them/ save them more money in the end.
The issue at stake is how much $ is spent to get the same in game advantage; people could and did buy more AUR, including under the new terms. So proponents of full wipes to keep things "fair" are pretty much demanding a pay to win system be enforced. |
|
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
632
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:25:00 -
[161] - Quote
Winscar Shinobi wrote: You don't understand laws well do you?
Anyway, how about you enlighten me as to why that's not legal?
Yes, the terms that apply are the ones that were in place when you made the purchase. One of those terms was that the terms themselves could change, and people agreed to it buy purchasing it anyway, they continued to agree to them everytime they logged in to PSN. |
Baal Roo
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1001
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:40:00 -
[162] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:Winscar Shinobi wrote: You don't understand laws well do you?
Anyway, how about you enlighten me as to why that's not legal? Yes, the terms that apply are the ones that were in place when you made the purchase. One of those terms was that the terms themselves could change, and people agreed to it buy purchasing it anyway, they continued to agree to them everytime they logged in to PSN.
In the U.S. the term that "these terms can change" is not legally binding/recognized. Otherwise, every legally binding contract would simply include this term and no seller would ever be held liable for anything. Such a term inherently negates the premise of having terms in the first place. |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
632
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:42:00 -
[163] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote: In the U.S. the term that "these terms can change" is not legally binding/recognized.
Oh okay, I was not aware of that. |
Baal Roo
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1002
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:49:00 -
[164] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:Baal Roo wrote: In the U.S. the term that "these terms can change" is not legally binding/recognized.
Oh okay, I was not aware of that.
to clarify, when this particular term is in an agreement, it means that people who purchase a product AFTER the terms have changed are not legally entitled to the earlier terms. It does not apply to purchases made before the terms changed, all purchased made prior to said change are bound to the previous terms.
Basically, Joe Public who buys the Merc Pack after they changed the terms can't say "Well, those people got different terms, you OWE me the same deal that they got". A more specific example would be the extra dropsuits that some players received in the Merc Pack. I didn't get them because I bought the Merc Pack too soon, and players who buy the Merc Pack now don't get them because that bonus is now over. We have no legal claim to those suits because the agreement clearly states the terms may change. However, anyone who bought it while those dropsuits were offered are legally entitled to them, even though they are no longer available to others.
make sense now? |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
632
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:51:00 -
[165] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:Baal Roo wrote: In the U.S. the term that "these terms can change" is not legally binding/recognized.
Oh okay, I was not aware of that. to clarify, when this particular term is in an agreement, it means that people who purchase a product AFTER the terms have changed are not legally entitled to the earlier terms. It does not apply to purchases made before the terms changed, all purchased made prior to said change are bound to the previous terms. Basically, Joe Public who buys the Merc Pack after they changed the terms can't say "Well, those people got different terms, you OWE me the same deal that they got". A more specific example would be the extra dropsuits that some players received in the Merc Pack. I didn't get them because I bought the Merc Pack too soon, and players who buy the Merc Pack now don't get them because that bonus is now over. We have no legal claim to those suits because the agreement clearly states the terms may change. However, anyone who bought it while those dropsuits were offered are legally entitled to them, even though they are no longer available to others. make sense now? Yeah. |
snipper doo
Osmon Surveillance Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 01:40:00 -
[166] - Quote
Bump |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |