"Can I get a refund on my rocket pods?"

Refund on rocket pods is silly, they haven't changed how they work or made them useless they have just attempted to balance them. So I don't agree with you on that but I do agree with the principle of refunds for actually changing an item from it's original description.

Example: 'LA-80'

LA-80's description effectively:
Increased bullet velocity for longer range shots with reduced bullet drop.

What happened? SOE wanted more money so they released the Longshot.

Longshot description effectively:
Increased bullet velocity for longer range shots with reduced bullet drop.

SOE: But we already have a gun like that so let's change the LA-80 to make it identical to the Bolt Driver.

This is a complete change to the item and to those of you saying it's just a game this sort of practice wouldn't hold up in New Zealand courts. Where I come from, New Zealand if you hadn't noticed, we have the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Fair Trading Act which are very strict about this kind of crap. To put it very simply here in New Zealand if someone sells you something it has to do exactly what the description said when you bought it. Unfortunately with the advent of internet commerce; companies seem to be able to avoid the law so it's a moot point.

Meh, welcome to the realities of dealing with digital properties. They're making ground with that over in Europe somewhere, basically allowing you to sell your digital rights to a product (like a game on Steam). The weapon balances don't apply though, because that's considered maintenance of a digital product and falls under after sale support services; same as bugfixes (which is kind of the closest thing). But altering a product in the manner you hypothesised? Yeah. That's actually a breach of your consumer rights...it's being given a Big Mac instead of a McChicken. In this case, you're entitled to demand your McChicken instead.

This reminds me of the EVE-Online PLEX debate back in the day. For those who aren't familiar with PLEXes and EVE, PLEX is essentially an in-game item that can be created by buying a game time code from CCP (the game firm) and then placed on the in-game market to be sold to other players for in-game currency. Basically a legit way to buy in-game money with real money. All was well among the stars, until they unlocked the PLEX from the stations and for the first time players could undock from stations with the PLEX items in their hold. This essentially meant that the item could be stolen or destroyed by other players. Sure enough on the very first week there were player kills with dozens of plexes, totalling losses in hundreds of euros / dollars for their buyer.

This spurred up the argument CCP are evildoers because they're getting money but they don't have to provide the game time they sold if the item is destroyed through player actions (stupidity).

The basic gist of the argument was people thinking CCP is selling game time for real money against the people who understood that they were selling an in-game item that COULD be used to get 30 days of game time. There's a HUGE difference between the two.

Now why am I talking about EVE and PLEXEs here?

Because SOE is selling you Station Cash for real money, not in-game equipment. Let me repeat this, they are not selling you weapons nor gear for real money. They're selling you Station Cash. What you do with it is completely up to you. You KNOW in-game items will be altered. You know this before you spend SC on anything, but even so they have NOT altered the product. The product you were sold was Station Cash. Not the Pandora shotgun, nor the Artemis combat rifle or any other weapon or item in-game.

Would you ask for a refund with they took all the xp and certs you earned with that weapon?

Yes, for sure. 1400 SC is worth it for the certs/xp I gained with the weapon.

I agree. As I said, SOE and many other companies are blatantly hiding behind "in-game currency" to avoid the law.

Read the TOS, specifically the "limitations of liability". If you're going to armchair lawyer the forums, at least know what you're talking about.

Also this part

And how can you be sure that this disclaimer is within the boundaries of the law? That's what we're getting at. It's all well and good to make this contract and make us agree to it but certain things (Like purchasing anything) come under different laws as well which can't be circumvented simply with words.

To give you an example of what I mean here in New Zealand you will see quite a few stores that have signs saying "We do not offer refunds for certain items purchased." and obviously by entering the store you are seen to agree with this statement. This is actually illegal in New Zealand, store owners aren't allowed to put up signs like that because customers are entitled to refunds. Stores still do this and customers can't really do anything because taking the company to court would waste masses of time and would cost them more than simply forgetting about it would. It's just one example of ways that companies cheat the law because they know no one's actually willing or able to do anything about it.

Basically what I'm saying is; it's shady, it goes on a lot, it's atrocious and there's not an awful we can do about it.

Their game, their rules. You agreed to those terms, which means you agreed that they can do what ever they want to their game and you will do nothing about it.

I am going to be honest with you, a law saying you are entitled to a refund is pretty damn stupid assuming you were not decieved in any way. And you were not decieved in any way here, or at least the game didnt deceive you, you may have deceived yourself. It is pretty easy to deceive yourself.

1) I havnt looked for the relevant line but somewhere on the user agreement is their get out clause about having the right to alter game elements with no liability to you (EDIT: it appears someones already found that above for you http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...d-on-my-rocket-pods.80220/page-2#post-1042212 )

2) SC like many other virtual currency is not regulated or even recognised in law as being legal tender thus any contract law falls on its face

3) Indeed, for a contract term to be defined as unfair youd need to engage in a legal battle and then only be compensated for losses, not punitive awards. Simply any company can load the crap in there and to challenge it youd need a prosecution fund 5 or 6 figures long to regain what is basically a few hours at minimum wage.

4) I dont use pods but out of interest, what did they do to them?

Stop whining, its legal.

This would be like buying a game, playing it for three months, and then demanding a refund because you don't like the most recent patch. Just silly.

Also, it's now clear that we're going to hear these complaints any time that a popular item is nerfed. Why do you guys think it is that this community has issues with something that is pretty much universally accepted elsewhere?

Wait? Why did you want a Rocket Pod refund? Didn't spot any Pod nerfs in patches for ages (god knows they could use a tweak). As for the refund, does not surprise me one bit and I have very mixed feeling on the issue, I purchased some weapons day 1 with AS SC that have never, ever been worth a damn. Prime example, the second gunner Walker on the magrider, can't hit air, does barely any ground armour damage, can't hit infantry, so it's entirely pointless. Should SOE give me a refund because what I bought was not up to my expectations? Well, I'd rather they just made it usable TBH.

If they say turned rocket pods into a super soaker that did what you'd expect a super soaker to do, I would be behind people wanting a refund, although having said that if I could strap a giant super soaker onto the bottom of my ESF I would... cuz you know... that'd be funny as fk. But making a weapon far from useless but just less ridiculous (as I said, I have no idea why you'd suddenly want a pod refund, if there has been a change please somebody direct me to it) shouldn't warrant a refund.

As for the legalities, I'm sure we are not in any way, shape or form entitled to a refund on items bought with SC, and unless you want to pay a good lawyer a lot of money to argue otherwise, do not expect a refund on anything you buy with SC.

I just stopped giving them money and have advised all of my friends to do the same.

If what you buy isn't the same thing a week later, then what exactly did you buy?

The truth is, they shouldn't be selling anything they are changing. Can you imagine buying a car, and then one day you go outside and it has 2 doors instead of 4 because Chrysler felt the need to rebalance it?

I suspect MMOs that go this route are asking for a big class action down the line, EULA or not.

Just to clear up some confusion.

If SOE takes away your SC - you have a legal recourse. You purchased the SC directly, and virtual currency has been declared intangible personal property in many countries, including the United States and the UK. When you buy it, you're considered to have purchased the title, or ownership of it.

When you purchase something in game using said virtual currency, legally speaking they are not actually making a sale, and you are not actually making a purchase. What you are doing is retaining a license from the company for the use of whatever it is. There is no transfer of title involved. The license can legally be revoked or altered by the issuing company at will.

So yes, it's a paper shield. It is, however, a perfectly legal one.

Seriously, we've had like ten topics on this today alone. Start using search.

My primary point is that as far as a contract goes it can't contradict actual rights that are given through other laws. If you sign a contract allowing someone to murder you if they want it's not legally binding because the contract conflicts with established laws. Likewise I imagine if the '2. Virtual Goods Generally.' is saying what I think it's saying, they are telling you they reserve their right to 'eliminate' what you paid for entirely. Now to me this sounds like a conflict with other laws.

Demonstrate to SOE the only way that they understand; no longer give them any more money.

In many cases, terms of service do not hold up as defense in a court of law.
Because this:

"Dear Sony,

I can't pretend I have any actual skill anymore even though nothing's changed. The fear of a nerf made me realize how terrible I am. Before it's shown through future changes, I'd just like a refund now."

Seems right to me that Sony shot you down.