Quote:
Right now they do. I could sue them for past expenses, the box and content costs specifically(and get much more than I paid as a punishment to the company for screwing customers), for charging a secondary fee that was not agreed to on a signed form before purchase.|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
1) But THEY'RE not turning it off: you are.
|
If they can ban you from accessing the content, not just the servers, then they are illegally banning you or illegally charging for the content, or illegally not allowing private use of the content.
This has been tested with movies. Movie owners are now, at least in the US, legally allowed to make back up copies of their own movies that they paid to own without a secondary fee despite movie companies not wanting that allowed.
TV service providers, internet service providers and even cellphone providers all offer free hardware with a service agreement because of competition and legal issues with charging for an unusable product. They also make you sign agreements for such even if they charge for it, before they charge you.
And, you know what?
I really didn't want to get this discussion on the question of legality, even if it is a big part of this.
I just want to play the game and purchase new content, while retaining all the content I paid for, and have it be fair to everyone in the future where all options are viable.
Quote:
Well, you've been doing both for years under the current City of Heroes model, so I would say it can't be that much of a problem for you. You're going to find, if you pay attention, that this issue of paying for general access, and then paying for specific elements within the thing you access, is actually extremely common, not just in gaming, but literally everywhere.
|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
I just can't legally or ethically rectify the cost of content and the cost of server access fees on top of each other.
One doesn't make sense when the other is present unless the latter is optional. |
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
My question was rhetorical.|
Originally Posted by Aggelakis
I already told you how many you need up thread. Then I asked a question. How many veteran months do you have?
|
It takes so many months(you posted it) to unlock them, but it takes zero months to buy access to them.
So where is the official statement saying "those who have purchased City of Heroes and Villains retain access to masterminds and controllers"?
It's not so much a point for me, as I will have access to them thankfully, but a point for other newer subscribers or those of the future who subscribe or don't ad buy the boxes.
This is also an issue with AE and the Architect Edition of the game which I purchased.
Pretty much, their point about "customers will retain everything they have purchased" is either incompletely explained because they didn't explain that box purchases include those archetypes(because they do) or it is a mistaken oversight that needs to be rectified or it is an outright lie.
Quote:
So I couldn't have made a mistake in the past by paying for a subscription for content I already purchased, blissfully unaware?|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Well, you've been doing both for years under the current City of Heroes model, so I would say it can't be that much of a problem for you. You're going to find, if you pay attention, that this issue of paying for general access, and then paying for specific elements within the thing you access, is actually extremely common, not just in gaming, but literally everywhere.
|
There are people who fight for that bliss as well.
Actually, such access is a service then, there is no content provided, least of all a physical item. If there is a physical item then it is specifically listed as "free" so they can stop use of it without costing you a dime or it is agreed upon with a signed agreement before they charge you for it.
Maybe I should go ahead and sue. I wonder if I can find a lawyer or group of lawyers that will try this logically pretty sound case and only charge when/if I win?
It would sure teach these companies a lesson about fair treatment of customers.
I really don't want to kill a good game with legal proceedings that will drastically reduce their available revenue though.
Quote:
Good luck with that. I don't know of any law that would prevent this kind of thing from happening, because with the free month, you have a month to educate yourself about the policy. Or, knowing that it's a subscription-based game, you shouldn't be surprised that it comes with a subscription cost.
|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
Right now they do. I could sue them for past expenses, the box and content costs specifically(and get much more than I paid as a punishment to the company for screwing customers), for charging a secondary fee that was not agreed to on a signed form before purchase.
|
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
Quote:
The lawyers may take the case, but would tell you not to advance with it as soon as they read the EULA, which you have to agree to before you even login. Even if you think that an EULA isn't legally binding, which the jury is still out on, the EULA educates you to the fact that a subscription will be required.|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
Maybe I should go ahead and sue. I wonder if I can find a lawyer or group of lawyers that will try this logically pretty sound case and only charge when/if I win?
It would sure teach these companies a lesson about fair treatment of customers. I really don't want to kill a good game with legal proceedings that will drastically reduce their available revenue though. |
Heck, I think it was mentioned on the side of the box, too.
In short, you don't have a case. But if you want to waste money, go ahead and hire a lawyer.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
If you'd bothered to parse my post correctly, you'd have noticed that I wasn't even talking about Hulu; I was talking about basic cable service. But okay. No service agreement?|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
2) You pay as a service for Hulu, not as a product. You have to sign an agreement before you can pay as well, right?
This game requires no service agreement and we pay for content as well. That is not right. You also can record things on Hulu when you are unable to watch it, right? You can on satellite TV with a free DVR box with the agreement. |
Right here.
If you scroll down to Paragraph 2, you'll notice it's called "Description of Service." It states, in part: "NC Interactive offers Game(s) as massively multiplayer subscription-based comic book hero and villain role-playing game(s) service and fee-based additional features..."
"To use the Service..."
"Anyone desiring to use the Service..."
"The Web Site is an active part of the Service..."
They're offering a service, not an ownable product.
And under Section 3, "License to Use":
"Subject to the terms of this Agreement, NC Interactive grants to you, for your personal use only, a non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable (except as permitted in Section 4(a)) license to use the Service, and a non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable (except as permitted in Section 4(a)) license to use the Software in connection with the Service, for a duration as defined in Section 5 for so long as you maintain an authorized and fully-paid Account.
They're letting you use the game as long as you pay. You don't own it.
Quote:
No, that is always likely because of human nature.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The fact that you got yours for free doesn't give your point any more validity. The fact is other people do pay, and for your point to be valid all those people who do pay would have to be doing so without reason. Which means not just MMOs, but lots of subscription industries all over the place would have to be violating this principle of yours.
As to the notion that the only reason this still happens is because no one has thought to sue over it, that's not likely. |
There is always someone who is greedy and there is always someone who will follow another's example.
We have laws because we have had things happen that we need to prevent from happening again.
The law itself is reactive, not proactive. It is about deterrence and punishment when deterrence fails, not prevention as if "we stopped you from stealing, go along your merry way now" instead of "you are going to jail for attempted theft".
Companies do what others do that works as well. They have a $15 monthly subscription because other companies set theirs at that point and it worked fine for them.
People used to be screwed over by price-gouging all over until laws were made to prevent it.
Seriously, you can't argue "it hasn't happened yet" as a reason for "it will never happen" since obvious things like "no human has set foot on Mars" are only true because we haven't done it yet.
And if it does happen and the financial model they have been using is perfectly legal then what happens?
I shut my mouth then since it is finally questioned and decided by a lot of people who seriously consider the possibility that it could be illegal.
It has to be tried first.
Quote:
1) Most people do not question it. I didn't at first because I just wanted to play.|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Good luck with that. I don't know of any law that would prevent this kind of thing from happening, because with the free month, you have a month to educate yourself about the policy. Or, knowing that it's a subscription-based game, you shouldn't be surprised that it comes with a subscription cost.
|
2) Those who do question then just avoid subscription game on principle, same with other services. They don't have a real right to sue when they have no idea how it really is and haven't fallen prey to it.
3) Laws are reactive and get made when things are found to be wrong. There could very well be no law truly preventing it, but a civil suit brought against the company can still be made and eventually lead to a law if the companies do not voluntarily change as a result of the case.
4) It isn't the subscription that is an issue, not entirely. I would gladly pay for "server access fees", but I expect that if I pay a fee for content I will be able to use that content without accessing the servers and being forced to pay again.
Quote:
You would lose. I would specifically take out a loan to double up my bet on that one.|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
Right now they do. I could sue them for past expenses, the box and content costs specifically(and get much more than I paid as a punishment to the company for screwing customers), for charging a secondary fee that was not agreed to on a signed form before purchase.
|
Quote:
| This has been tested with movies. Movie owners are now, at least in the US, legally allowed to make back up copies of their own movies that they paid to own without a secondary fee despite movie companies not wanting that allowed. |
Quote:
| I just want to play the game and purchase new content, while retaining all the content I paid for, and have it be fair to everyone in the future where all options are viable. |
And here, in City of Heroes, you have never paid for content, because CoH has never in the legal sense sold you content. The subscription pays for access to the servers. The boxes paid for limited access to a set of content on those servers, contingent on subscription. You say above "...for charging a secondary fee that was not agreed to on a signed form before purchase." I'm not sure why you think that there's any requirement for there to be a "signed form" before purchase. The actual box says "additional oneline fees required." It says that on every boxed copy I can currently find handy, which includes the original box, the good vs evil box, and the Going Rogue box. They all say "First month of play included; Internet connection required; Additional online fees required."
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
People used to think the world was flat.|
Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
|
People used to have to pay greedy people whatever they wanted for necessities. In fact, this still happens around the world.
There are plenty of things that unquestioning people regard with derision, but are later proven to be a mistake to dismiss.
"Einstein is a crackpot; he'll never amount to anything."
I laugh at anything dismissed completely without any serious thought, even though I do it sometimes myself. It's better to know for sure, than dismiss possibilities that could be important and haven't been tested yet.
Quote:
Maybe. I admit that, especially if you were the judge having a vested interest in your own habit of paying for content and subscribing being justified and legal rather than having been taken advantage of.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
You would lose. I would specifically take out a loan to double up my bet on that one."
|
There are other people out there though. You are not in control of the legal system no completely objective, without a vested interest either way.
I would still like to see this tried if companies will not be more fair to their customers voluntarily.
A provider of a service has the right to price that service at whatever they like. A consumer has a right not purchase the service if they don't like the price.
This is pretty much a fundamental cornerstone of capitalism. The only time law would interfer would be specific anti-gouging laws or fraud, neither of which would apply here.
Global name: @k26dp
Quote:
I disagree. I don't think VIP subscribers will all relocate to the VIP server just because it exists.|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
I'm putting this here because I have no idea where else to that I can even post.
I'm a loyal 33+ month veteran of this game. I've had a lot of fun in this game and bought quite a bit of extras, from every boxed deal/rerelease to many boosters. I've recommended and defended this game to many people. I've been an active voice helping other players understand the newbie-unfriendly overcomplicated immersion-breaking systems in a messy overly-complex UI of this game. I've been extra excited for each new issue. I've eagerly made a new character using the newest power set each new issue. I am excited for the new issue. I love the new things coming. I can't wait to play Time Manipulation. I can't wait to be able to buy things that I actually want directly instead of renting access and paying for things i don't want. I have been hoping that this would make content more frequent and even better through direct ales giving developers a direct line of feedback as to which content is best done so that they can improve and sell us more. I knew the future of city of Heroes was bright. I'm sorry, but I say no. No, it is not that good anymore. I was wrong. I have become less and less and less and less enthusiastic about the new issue, issue 21, coming out soon with every few days. I have been learning all the details as they have been released, but also later as someone points me to things I missed. I have questions, but even more answers that are not good. I "was" looking forward to CoH: Freedom. I "was" thinking this would be a much more fair financial model akin to those used by DDO and LOTRO. I "was" sure that I would retain everything I had already paid for and most of the unlocked things. I "was" certain that, even if I had to pay a premium, I would be able to permanently unlock content. ! "was" certain that the developers would be moving away from making content take longer and be rented to make money. I "was" certain that the way they would make money would be through releasing new content that people want to buy. I "knew" that this would be a version of F2P that would make every customer feel that their money spent was welcome and worthwhile. I was very wrong. I have discovered that despite over 33 months of veteran time, fully paid, I will be losing access to 6 archetypes that I previously had access to. I have discovered that, apparently, I will even lose access to the characters I have already made that are of those archetypes. I have discovered that I will have to pay a pseudo-subscription "license" just to "rent" the invention system or AE. I have discovered that purchasing that "license", or not, will still not allow me to benefit from any invention origin set bonuses. I have discovered that the "licenses" can be avoided, and I can get back partially systems which I already have, by subscribing for approximately another year after Freedom goes live to unlock the remaining Paragon Rewards tiers. I have seen how the game used to play. I have seen what these overly-complicated systems add to the game, and it is worth the complication. I have played this game before it was even half as good as it is now. I have seen that almost everything that has been added to the game while I was subscribed, or unable to pay, will be taken away with Freedom. I have seen that some of it will be locked behind the subscription with no option to unlock. I have seen that some of it will only be accessible through a "pseudo-subscription" fee. I predict, many VIP players will switch to the VIP only sever. I predict, the decision to restrict the invention system will mean less people will pay to deal with it. I predict, demand will increase but supply will inevitably not keep pace, driving the in game market prices to the inf cap for even more items. I predict, the restriction of the incarnate system to VIP subscribers only, and absolutely, will result in fewer incarnate trial teams to be found, especially with VIP subscribers leaving for another server. I predict, there will be very little grind to keep non-subscribers busy with them being restricted almost entirely to SOs. I predict that even generic IOs will not take long enough to obtain to earn much money from "licenses" and keep people busy. Most of all.... I was excited, but now I am starting to feel hatred towards this game and the decisions made. I have seen other F2P models. I have seen other F2P conversions from P2P. i have seen the past history of this game and its extra content sales. I have seen other F2P games sell temporary stat boosts. I have seen other F2P games sell content unlocks. I have seen other F2P games treat their veterans well. I am seeing City of Heroes do some of those. I am seeing City of Heroes not do some of those. An am seeing City of Heroes make mistakes. I am seeing it make mistakes that I can't accept on principle, let alone on my wallet. I was hoping for F2P to continue supporting the best MMO I have ever played. I was hoping that my patronage and money spent would be welcomed and worthwhile. I was hoping to be able to pay a fair price and get what I pay for. I was not hoping for a grind reset back to 2006. I was not hoping for more grind that I had to pay a lot for. I was hoping to no longer be charged for a rental fee when the rented property was not even in use.(server access fees while I sleep) I was hoping for fun above all else. I do not think it is smart or fair to lock existing characters away from veteran players, especially not those that have played over a year already. I have never seen a game do this before without a mandatory subscription. I do not think it is smart or fair to lock away content permanently behind the subscription without a one-time purchase method of unlocking it as well. Content should be for all. I do not think it is smart of fair to lock away systems behind a subscription then sell only part of the system back for a temporary fee that is no different than a subscription. This is just a dirty trick to get a subscription out of non-subscribers. I do not think it is smart or fair to treat your veterans as less than new subscriptions. they are the reason your game still exists, and you have the nerve to give them a reduced amount of rewards from Paragon Reward Tokens compared to subscriptions after Freedom launches?! You have the nerve to tell them "you will be able to unlock all that you have access to" and yet still leave certain major benefits like the character classes they had and systems they had access to at such a high tier that only the most senior of veterans can even get those basic systems they all once had?! You have the nerve to take things away from them that they have paid for over many months and years and charge them to get it back?! Why not just keep everything locked behind a subscription and forget the conversion to F2P? I don't think it will go over well with future subscribers as you release more and more content that they still have to spend points on instead of being included with the subscription. I do think that will happen. After all, we have seen super boosters behind an extra fee despite paying a mandatory subscription. It isn't too far a stretch to see that the monthly stipend of points for subscribers has to be for something. It is obvious there will likely be more and more to buy that will be over the monthly stipend and impossible to save the stipend for all or even most. Eventually, subscribers won't even be getting a good deal at that rate. It would be better to stay under the current system then. Look, "free to play" is supposed to be a way for customers to have options and to feel they are getting a good deal so they will pay you for that deal. It's supposed to be defined by the removal of the mandatory subscription in favor of direct purchase of content and temporary statistical boosts with, perhaps, and optional subscription. You're allowing us some options, but they are expensive, not to mention the things we have to buy back after they were taken away. You're still leaving the subscription as a mandatory fee for content, rather than for exclusive services and free play of the purchasable content. You're treating game content that is currently, and should always be, permanent as if it were a repeatable purchase of a temporary statistic boost. I'm sick of this. I've had enough. F2P should be fair to both the people who buy content piecemeal with one time purchases and the subscribers, but you are clearly not being very fair to non-subscribers and blatantly ripping off veterans who choose to buy content individually. Your system even leaves huge holes where you can ripoff subscribers eventually. If nothing else, every piece of content should be available through a fairly priced one time purchase of permanent access to it while services, such as character renames and transfers and global channel access and forum posting ability, are restricted to subscribers only and perhaps temporary licensees. This is not fair to your veteran customers who are the reason you still have jobs, let alone future customers. This isn't even fair to your subscribers who will have a constantly reduced pool of possible teammates for exclusive content. How many people can you guarantee they will have to be able to run all that new incarnate content now and in the future? That's a big chunk of the game that non-subscribers can ignore and can't keep them busy and paying or even give them incentive to subscribe for because they lose it if they stop subscribing and it is supposedly "optional" and not required for any of the content they do have access to. Why would they subscribe for more unnecessary grind and more challenges that feel the same as challenges they already have access to? Why would they continue to subscribe once they experienced the story? Are you sure another grind is enough to hold their interest? Why can't you just make fun content and sell it to us. Sell us more costume options, more stories, new zones, revamps to old zones and all sorts of content. Don't force us to subscribe for it or you'll end up with no more subscribers than you already have, those already willing to pay a subscription for more of the game than those in the future will have to pay a full $15 for. What looks like less content for the same amount of money doesn't look very enticing to those who didn't find $15 worth the entire game as P2P. I'm a veteran. I'm disappointed in the prices. I'm perturbed at the subscription only content instead of just services and a stipend. I'm just plain angry at the loss of content I already have, especially my current characters. I'm not going to subscribe to CoH Freedom. I'm not even going to spend any money the way this looks. In fact, I think I'll probably just uninstall your greed-machine and hope that others do the same. I'm sorry, but I say no to your scam. I will not suffer unfair treatment, price gouging and lack of the best content simply because I am smart enough to not fall for your pseudo-subscription licensing and refuse to pay for unused subscription time. You should have taken a page from the book of other f2P/freemium games that treat their customers fairly and make them WANT to spend rather than forcing their hand. I don't WANT to spend money on your game if this is the direction you are taking, where my dollar is never enough to unlock content you make and never enough to buy even temporary access to services. You obviously don't WANT my money or you could easily make me WANT to give it to you by giving me things to spend it on and at a fair price. I'll take my money elsewhere and hope your game sees the light and changes, for the sake of every customer, or fails and teaches you a hard lesson about "biting the hand that feeds you". P.S. I loved Time Manipulation, even just the concept,but the fact that I won't have access t IOs or bonuses to make it more easily playable severely dampened my enthusiasm. You may say "the game isn't balanced around inventions", but you constantly balance around that system and the incarnate system otherwise how can incarnate content even require incarnate powers? how can a challenge be maintained unless you constantly adjust to the level of the players instead of letting them overpower it like true "superheroes"? Also, your game is stupidly laggy and inefficient with dumb stupid things going over the internet that should never do so. I saw a French "this player has quit the team" message in my chat box the other day, despite the fact that it was an automated string and I am playing on an English client. Why would that ever send a French string rather than a much shorter universal code for "quit team"? Dumb. I can easily design a more efficient system that is still secure. and don't give me that "you would do it if you could" or "then do it" or "you can't because you haven't" because we all know there are a lot of different reasons why I haven't yet and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with lack of ability or dishonesty about that statement. The point of the statement is that this game is worse than games that are even older than it or the same age. I've played WoW, o a laptop no less. I never ever had my character "rubber-band"(a.k.a. move back to a previous position or to the position that the server says "no, you are here") in WoW simply because they had the obvious idea to eliminate the obvious cause of rubber-banding. Their game obviously is doing quite well still, many thanks likely to their emphasis on performance rather than unnecessary proprietary complexity that nobody would even want to copy because it is so bad. I'm letting my time run out and not coming back unless there are some major changes to make me feel welcome and my money feel wanted rather than demanded. |
I disagree with the rest too, but that one bit stuck out in my head as needing specific commentary for a reality check.
@TURGENEV - Freedom Server / IRON / B.A.N.E / HORDE
Turg Fiction: Ghost in the Machine Acts III & IV coming 2012!
Turg Fiction: IX is now LIVE on Architect Entertainment!
Quote:
Ignorance is not a valid legal defense. You could have read and disagreed then, but you didn't. This is exactly like choosing not to follow a speed limit sign that you saw because you "just wanted to drive."|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
1) Most people do not question it. I didn't at first because I just wanted to play.
|
Quote:
| 2) Those who do question then just avoid subscription game on principle, same with other services. They don't have a real right to sue when they have no idea how it really is and haven't fallen prey to it. |
Quote:
| 3) Laws are reactive and get made when things are found to be wrong. There could very well be no law truly preventing it, but a civil suit brought against the company can still be made and eventually lead to a law if the companies do not voluntarily change as a result of the case. |
"Further, in ProCD v. Zeidenberg, the license was ruled enforceable because it was necessary for the customer to assent to the terms of the agreement by clicking on an "I Agree" button in order to install the software. In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., however, the licensee was able to download and install the software without first being required to review and positively assent to the terms of the agreement, and so the license was held to be unenforceable."
Now, you can make a case that since you bought the box, that you didn't have the chance to download it first before you bought it. That still doesn't mean that you couldn't have done that. You could have installed the game client, read the agreement, and then purchased the game before you logged in. I'm sure that people have done this. As such, since NCSoft gives you the ability to read the agreement before you buy the game (it's also up on their website), the EULA that is in-game would be considered an enforceable contract.
And before you say something stupid like, "people don't read the EULA before buying a game," I'll warn you that I did this exact thing, because I wanted to know what I was signing up for.
Quote:
| 4) It isn't the subscription that is an issue, not entirely. I would gladly pay for "server access fees", but I expect that if I pay a fee for content I will be able to use that content without accessing the servers and being forced to pay again. |
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Selina_H
If you'd bothered to parse my post correctly, you'd have noticed that I wasn't even talking about Hulu; I was talking about basic cable service. But okay. No service agreement?
Right here. If you scroll down to Paragraph 2, you'll notice it's called "Description of Service." It states, in part: "NC Interactive offers Game(s) as massively multiplayer subscription-based comic book hero and villain role-playing game(s) service and fee-based additional features..." "To use the Service..." "Anyone desiring to use the Service..." "The Web Site is an active part of the Service..." They're offering a service, not an ownable product. And under Section 3, "License to Use": "Subject to the terms of this Agreement, NC Interactive grants to you, for your personal use only, a non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable (except as permitted in Section 4(a)) license to use the Service, and a non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable (except as permitted in Section 4(a)) license to use the Software in connection with the Service, for a duration as defined in Section 5 for so long as you maintain an authorized and fully-paid Account. They're letting you use the game as long as you pay. You don't own it. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Selina_H
They're offering a service, not an ownable product.
|
Why can we not use the product offline when it costs them nothing for that so long as we pay for the content to cover the cost of the content.
My issue is that the status of the game as a product, service or both has never been tested, nor the resultant fees of them charging as both a product and a service.
Sure, the EULA may say that, but they certainly don't rice or sell the content as a service. They offer a physical box even. That's not what a service provides and it isn't under the price of the service entirely, $15.
I wouldn't be surprised if this were to go to court and prove to all of you that you were being misled and duped into paying more than you should have for a product and/or service that you did not get the full value of, which is where price-gouging comes in with the full value argument.
Edit:
Yes, we are forced to agree to the EULA when we sign in to the game every time, but there are still questions.
1) Is the wording legal?
2) Is the actual execution of the product/service legal in perfect accordance with the wording of the EULA?
3) Is the EULA legally binding without a user signature and when most users don't, and can hardly be expected to, read the whole thing, especially considering many of those users are able to purchase and play as young as age 13 when they can't be held legally responsible for contractual obligations without a parent or guardian to cosign?
It's pretty murky at best, and illegal at worst.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
People used to think the world was flat.
People used to have to pay greedy people whatever they wanted for necessities. In fact, this still happens around the world. There are plenty of things that unquestioning people regard with derision, but are later proven to be a mistake to dismiss. "Einstein is a crackpot; he'll never amount to anything." I laugh at anything dismissed completely without any serious thought, even though I do it sometimes myself. It's better to know for sure, than dismiss possibilities that could be important and haven't been tested yet. |
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
Quote:
Because most of the data is located on their servers. You need to be online to access their servers. Except for character data, what's on your computer is a fraction of what you need to actually run the game. Purchasing the game covers a lot of the development costs of the game. The subscription pays for server maintenance and upgrades, program stability and bug fixing, and if the Devs are generous, continued content generation. However, if it was just subscription costs, they'd never have been able to pay back the development loans/costs.|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
Yes, but then why charge for the content as an ownership fee at all?
Why can we not use the product offline when it costs them nothing for that so long as we pay for the content to cover the cost of the content. |
Quote:
| My issue is that the status of the game as a product, service or both has never been tested, nor the resultant fees of them charging as both a product and a service. |
Quote:
| Sure, the EULA may say that, but they certainly don't rice or sell the content as a service. They offer a physical box even. That's not what a service provides and it isn't under the price of the service entirely, $15. |
Quote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if this were to go to court and prove to all of you that you were being misled and duped into paying more than you should have for a product and/or service that you did not get the full value of, which is where price-gouging comes in with the full value argument. |
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
How about 13 year old children who their parents give a debit card to keep their money safe while allowing them purchases and they use it to buy the game that they are allowed to play yet are not able to legally enter into a binding contract without the consent of a parent or guardian?|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Ignorance is not a valid legal defense. You could have read and disagreed then, but you didn't. This is exactly like choosing not to follow a speed limit sign that you saw because you "just wanted to drive."
|
There are so many ways to attack it beyond just logic alone.
All I am saying is that the practice of selling content and then selling the time, without which it can't be used, to use it, especially without at least some time to use it no matter how small the content or time(though that can be illegally small), is shady at best and illegal at worst.
It can and should be tried in a court of law.
Edit:
I'm done with this topic because you people just dismiss it rather than ever think "what could make him right?" which would be the objective way of finding the truth.
You just keep forcing me to argue in circles, saying what is certainly true of other fair services and products, and not even trying to understand the logic of it that has made me, a former blissfully ignorant defensive follower, of the same model until I questioned it enough.
Quote:
It could be that if I had said "it is wrong", but I actually said "it could be wrong".|
Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
|
I'm saying:
"It looks like a scam; it could be a scam."
You're saying:
"It looks like idiocy; it IS idiocy."
You're not bothering to admit the possibility of being wrong.
Quote:
Really? This is the best you've got? From the EULA:|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
How about 13 year old children who their parents give a debit card to keep their money safe while allowing them purchases and they use it to buy the game that they are allowed to play yet are not able to legally enter into a binding contract without the consent of a parent or guardian?
There are so many ways to attack it beyond just logic alone. |
"(a) Eligibility. By clicking the "I Accept" button you represent that you are an adult 18 years of age or older or, if under 18 years of age, that you have the consent of a parent or guardian and will provide their details where requested. Those who have completed these steps and who maintain their Account in good standing are sometimes referred to in this Agreement as "Members." "
Basically, the child shouldn't have been clicking the "I Agree" button without a parent's consent. And any lawyer would tell you the same.
Quote:
|
All I am saying is that the practice of selling content and then selling the time, without which it can't be used, to use it, especially without at least some time to use it no matter how small the content or time(though that can be illegally small), is shady at best and illegal at worst. It can and should be tried in a court of law. |
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Turgenev
I disagree. I don't think VIP subscribers will all relocate to the VIP server just because it exists.
I disagree with the rest too, but that one bit stuck out in my head as needing specific commentary for a reality check. |
Have you not seen the people saying "I want to move all my toons to the VIP server to get away from the F2P plague"?
I didn't say all, and not most, but some will. A decrease is a decrease, even if small.
They may spread out among the servers and not agree on one central server to go to as well, except the VIP server. Those who choose to stay will find less people for exclusive content then.
It's just a concern, not a certainty, that it will become obvious and problematic.
Quote:
Where have I said anything beyond the two links?|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
It could be that if I had said "it is wrong", but I actually said "it could be wrong".
I'm saying: "It looks like a scam; it could be a scam." You're saying: "It looks like idiocy; it IS idiocy." You're not bothering to admit the possibility of being wrong. |
You are reading things into what I may, or may not have meant by those two links. That in and of itself is very, very telling.
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
You just gave more credit to my point.
As to the notion that the only reason this still happens is because no one has thought to sue over it, that's not likely. EULAs have been held up under far stronger suits. The only reason you might not have read about a final judgment in a suit like you're describing is because if anyone actually tried this line of argument I doubt it would have made it past preliminary motion to dismiss.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)