Consolidated CAMO: SC REFUND?

I have bought several camo combinations for armor, weapons, and vehicles.

Edit: Shouldn't have been so mean.

I am sorry you fail to find the nexus between injunctive relief and gain. Stopping others from doing something (getting compensated with certs based on past business practices) is gain. And you don't need to do any bizarre hand motions to one's cheek to realize that.

But what is happening here are consumers not getting any sort of benefits after discovering that three is actually one.
Even if there was a some sort of warning ingame indicating such change, those camos were still there, and unaware folks were still buying em. YESTERDAY.

I mean, you can't sell your products and change em later on, and telling your consumers to "deal with it, we won't give you refunds". It's a bad marketing move, and they are losing trust and a lot of potential customers while doing so.

In short; what is consumer rights.

They arn't changing the product.

They're changing the pricing.

You have lost nothing, the product has not changed. You have all your camos.

In the future if you want more camo groups you can get them for cheaper.

There is nothing about this that you lose out on. Literally your argument is that 'it's cheaper now and i'm angry that other people are getting it for cheaper'.

SOE won't be doing refunds. Idiots, like me, who bought several camo sets get nothing for being so foolish with our SC.

Nevertheless, it would still be a nice gesture on SOE's part if they gave us dedicated customers a little somethin' sumthin'. They could give all members with > than X amount of SC purchases within the year (or whatever) a unique item. Something neat. Something cool enough that other players ask how we got it.

They slashed the price of something by two thirds. Buyer beware... Sure. But still... a special hat would make me feel better.

This happens all the time. Go to a grocery store and you'll notice products get smaller in size while the price stays the same, or they'll give you bundles of a product for the same price. In the fashion that's happening with the camos, this happens all the time in the real world. The quality of the camo is still there, and the type of camo is still there, but in essence, they just changed the cost to size ratio. Pretty much, you're paying less for more in this case.

No our argument is that in the past SOE has consolidated and awarded cert allotments for the loss. We are asking that the past policy concerning consolidations should be followed and not abandoned as you suggest. Under your logic then SOE should go back and take away all the certs they gave out when they consolidated common pool vehicle and infantry weapons.

Would you then, as a matter of pricniple, be OK if SOE went back and put people's accounts in the cert minus column for all the certs they gave out based on their last consolidation?

According to your position, that is exactly what they should do to be consistent with your line of thinking.

Shiiet, I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated:
The new price is not the issue. The issue is that people who bought less at the old price suddenly gets a lot of free camos while the people who bought more at the old price gets nothing.

Your arguement would only have made sense if the people who only bought 1 camo of a set would've had to purchase the new consolidated camos to get the full set and they had been complaining about it. But that's not the issue now.

SOE isn't going to mass hand out funds every time they lower the price of something. I'm sure if you buy a $30,000 car your dealer will be happy to give you $30,000 trade in credit when the new model comes out... Get over it and learn to live in the real world.

Just want to say it's really stupid to have ever made the camos not apply to all items (vehicles, guns, characters). It was a bad deal to begin with so I'm just happy they're finally doing it right.

It's really the same thing as a price reduction in that case. If you bought the PS3 when it was $500, versus buying it at $500 but a free game was bundled with the system, should the person who bought the original price without the free game get anything extra extra? Technically, you're still paying the same price for an item, but in one case, the item gives you more for free. If you include the costs together, it comes out as a reduced price.

No because it's not a matter of principle.

You arn't losing anything. Just as a point of example: if SOE went and took certs away then people actually would be losing something and would be rightfully angry. That is the very important difference you are missing IMO.

The point that there is a precedent of refunds is a good one. But look how those went. People exploited the system to get tons of certs. Certs don't matter that much, but station cash does. Potential station cash refund exploits would be kind of a big deal.

They could mine their databases to provide only limited refunds but that would entail work (=$$$) on their end, above and beyond the $$$ they are losing by providing people with free SC.

Not very many people only buy camos in bundles. I would wager a relative handful. Even people who have bought camo bundles probably have a number of single camos they have purchased.
And if it chaps you that much you can go out and buy a bunch of single camos you want right now...presumably. I haven't checked if there's a date limit on this.

Paying for three items, to discover that three is actually one, and not giving any sort of benefits after this change on the product (Three has become one;it's a product change.) is a loss, to me.

As I said previously, it's a videogame (ITT; virtual goods) we are talking about. And even if it had a some sort of warning ingame; telling your consumers to "deal with it" is a bad marketing move.

[q

It's only a loss in your head. In a profit and loss column you have lost nothing.

The product you purchased was a camo. You got the camos. You still have the camos. They arn't taking your camos away. That is not what you are upset about. Logically you are upset that you could have gotten the camos for a cheaper price. A price change. Price changes happen all the time. There is not and never has been a precedent of getting refunds for buying something that changes price later.

This is especially true in the video gaming market. It is a core aspect of the business model to start at a premium price and gradually reduce the price over time to tap into a wider market. Logically people should always wait for a later, lower price. But people place a premium on getting the game NOW and will often pay the premium price.

Fortunately they don't have to, a lot of us are willing to tell people to "deal with it" without any prompting or payment from SOE.

Replying my post with typical "no you" comebacks does not add anything to this discussion.
And your repeated the same thing you said previously. So I'd suggest you to read my post again.

This would be great. I've purchased a couple of recent camos this week.

That's not even remotely close.

You and me both buy camos on the same day and from the same store. You buy three of them for 1500 sc and I buy one for 500 sc.

A couple months later the store owner decides to cut prices to a 1/3 of the cost we both bought them at and also decides to fully or partially apply the discounted price retroactively for me and all customers... except for you. Because you bought more than others.

Does that make sense?

Wrong. In this metaphor, he bought the PS3 and you bought the PS3 and the game.

The store later decides to bundle the two together, and grants the game free to all purchasers of the PS3.

All this is in your head. You get the discounted price too. There is literally no downside for you.

No, it was similar but a bit different. I am trying to approach the same point from different angles.

I don't really see how that was a 'no u' comment, either. You seem to get aggrieved too much :/