SC Reimbursements

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by axiom537, Dec 6, 2012.

  1. SanguniusIX -=TRAF=-

    I have no rage here friend, I just find it hilarious that so many of you are this upset over a video game. It's truly pathetic, so you spent 7$ on a weapon that they changed, made it less OP by not having a dumb fire and you would like your money back because they took out the dumb fire. Read the EULA and stop complaining about a game that you DON'T have to pay a penny for.
  2. Curze

    actually YOU dont have to pay a penny because WE pay the pennies for you

    I certainly wont be spending a red cent on this game ever again, so that means the freeloaders like you will get the shaft when the game goes the way of the dodo due to insufficient income to keep it running
    • Up x 1
  3. jak

    No, bait and switch would be offering a rocket launcher for 200 SC, then telling you that is no longer available but you can buy a different model for 500 SC. Well, that's the retail definition, which this would fall under.

    What you guys are failing to realize is your money doesn't BUY you a gun. You are effectively renting a service that they are free at any time to modify because they own it.
    • Up x 1
  4. I'm behind you

    Disagree completely.

    It'd set too sticky a precedent. It'd also discourage SOE from ever actually working on the game because they'd have to hand out refunds every time they changed anything.

    Also to everyone talking about legal action, a lot of people with little or no understanding of how the law works believe that it's a series of magic words, and you just have to invoke the proper incantation. Good luck with that.
    • Up x 1
  5. Lor

    Simply put, you'd never win a court case against SOE for this. The "property" does not belong to you, but SOE. I understand that this is the first venture into online gaming for most of you, but this sort of thing has been discussed time and time again for plenty of other games. Understand that paying for any virtual item is never guaranteed and always involves some risk.
    • Up x 1
  6. Root

    You're assuming that I'm upset. Probably not the best word for it, disheartened? No, disappointed might be the best word. Maybe. As to it being "pathetic", well I guess we have to disagree on that, but the fact that you've generalized it in such a way sort of gives me the impression that you didn't really read any of it, and are just kind of lashing out at people. Which kind of, in psychological terms suggests at least some underlying rage being expressed. Had you read, and understood, what who has said, you'd realize you're talking to someone who agrees that throwing around lawsuit threats so loosely isn't the best course of action. As to what I pay, well I'm subscribed for starters. As I said, you're simply being too obtuse to contribute to this discussion civilly.
    • Up x 1
  7. ChaoticRegiement

    We have no rights for a re-fund (anyone that says otherwise is delusional) the EULA is bulletproof. You did read it right? thought not.

    however if SOE shows good faith and good customer service they may make more money in the long run.
  8. Rothnang

    I think it would be very nice of Sony to give refunds if something is fundamentally altered or removed, but when they are tweaking numbers or removing functionalities the item should have never had (Looking at you anti-everything launcher) they don't need to give a refund.

    If they refunded peoples SC every time they make a change people would just instantly use that SC to chase the next flavor of the month and so on, they wouldn't make any money that way.
  9. Curze

    its a tricky thing. how can you sell something for real money, then change it due to balance reasons? its a lose-lose situation, either people ******* due to poor balance or ******* due to spending money on stuff that suddenly loses the value it had when you purchased it.

    thats why imo the F2P model = the devil, and the game was dead from the get-go

    how I wish this game was sub-based....
  10. Lakora

    Please stop with the overexaggerated metaphors...

    A proper one would be

    You purchase a new BMW M5... Few weeks later you get a notice stating that you will not be able to purchase original parts for it at a BMW dealer cause of changes to the BMW M5 Deluxe.

    Besides I got both the Hawk and Crow so I see what the problem is... Everyone crying about this change either...

    A: Wanted an Allround rocket launcher for both Air, Vehicles and the occasional infantry.
    B: Are such crappy shots they use the Rocket Launcher for killing Infantry aswell...

    So yeah just get over it and get the AV launcher than or just stick with the standard one and switch to AA when need be.
  11. Root

    More generalizations, neat. What about C: Would like to be able to dumb fire G2A at air and G2G at tanks?
  12. I'm behind you

    Eh, you'd get the same amount of ******** and people would just threaten to quit and claim they're never giving them any money ever again. Of course 90% of them never make good on what they say. Same here. Probably only a few of the people saying they'll never buy any more SC will actually do so.
  13. Curze

    we shall see. I know I said Im not buying SC ever again and I fully know I will stand by my word. cant predict what others will do, what you say may or may not be true, but thinking like that is quite a gamble when your trying to pull a successful business. honestly, even without this "SC refund riot", the game had way too many problems for my taste so anyway I was considering a break that probably would last...a lot.
    this just makes an easy decision even easier.
    • Up x 1
  14. Sleepwalk

    You're missing the point entirely. I don't think anyone in this thread is talking about refunds just because something better comes out. Doesn't even have to do with things being OP or not. Look at the upcoming changes to the G2A launcher. The dumbfire ability is being taken out, and the range and reload times are getting buffed. Not even a straight up buff or nerf, but a balance change. Some people bought it because they liked the tactical ability to use one weapon for AV (albeit weaker than other launchers but still usable) and AA. Now the AV ability gets taken out and the AA buffed.

    While changes like that are going to happen in a game like this, the fact remains that it's functionally a different weapon than what they bought. Since it's a game and it's all virtual SOE doesn't have to do anything, but the best way to treat the customer would be to allow customers a refund in that case.
    • Up x 2
  15. Aggh

    It's actually a fairly common tactic in f2p games. Make a gun OP just long enough to milk it for cash and then nerf it later on, often after making it more readily available or when a wider part of the population gains access to it through f2p means. At least providing station cash refunds on nerfed items would allow them to show that wasn't their intention. It wouldn't cost them much and would gain some good will with the player base.
  16. deaded

    Actually as for the new Hawk, I welcome the change, cause supposedly it will be buffed against air? Thats why I bought it, and thats what triggered me in its description to buy it. I just hope the buff is considerable and makes it much easier to both get a lock and a connect with your rockets.

    Anyway, you are not going to get your money back, Im afraid.
  17. WilsonMG

    That's the exact premise under which a lot of people I know who have it, bought it for SC, including myself. Losing the ability to fire it quickly at hovering aircraft, as well as at ground vehicles (for a hefty damage penalty), completely changes the function of the weapon. They could have just made it less accurate when "dumbfired", i.e. add a random CoF to it, in which case, no one would have anything to argue about, but instead they made the mistake of completely removing a feature, and look at the blowback that that decision has caused.

    The only thing I'm debating now is whether or not I should submit a ticket for a refund now, based purely on the premise that it's a planned change, or whether I should hold out until the patch hits hoping they realize exactly how many people this is going to p**s off, and reverse their decision. If they do press forward and remove this feature, they will see a lot of refund requests, including one from me, regardless of whether or not they grant them. Not granting refunds will most assuredly cost them customers.
    • Up x 1
  18. Tatlok

    I would say that this is a rather questionable action if SOE goes through with this.

    Station Cash is a form of virtual currency used in exchange for a virtual good. The only way to get virtual currency is through the exchange of real world currency. This is where the first problem starts. By virtue of the newness of this sort of exchange, we leave any code of laws in the hands of the entity giving out the currency. Partly because there are no clear definitions or laws in place that regulate the exchange of real world currency for virtual currency or virtual goods. At least in the USA. Laws in the UK favor the consumer and something like this would likely not fly there.

    As a result SOE is the defacto regulator of the exchange between real world currency to SC and thus are, essentially, free to make up the rules, which obviously benefit them and only them, where the consumer is left with no option but to accept their terms or leave. Fair or unjust? Would something like this be acceptable in the real world when your hard earned income is involed?

    One such rule that was actually used on a poster by an SOE TSR: section 5 of the EULA; all fees are prepaid and non-refundable. All payments for Virtual Goods are non-refundable. There is no follow up clause in the EULA, there is nothing that says that they will offer any refund you your real world cash or return SC if any fundamental change is made to a virtual good. On the contrary, they say that they retain the right to make any changes as the please as they say it is their product.

    But to what extent is it their good when a consumer has made an exchange with the full intention that the good they are using will be used for its intended purpose to suddenly change without notice cause or recourse? To what extent should a company be allowed to exact the notion of "its our product and we can do what we please with it" with regards to virtual goods especially when real currency is involved?

    Station Cash can be used in a variety of games made by SOE to purchase virtual goods. Now I ask, is it still a good as in real life or is it no longer bound by the rules that we have established in real life and nothing more then buying the right to access a part of SOEs server? This, to me, seems to be the fundamental issue here.

    As many have stated, you buy an item with the intention of using the item for its intended purpose. In the case of the anti-air launcher, its intended purpose is the ability to lock on an airborne target as well as the ability to fire with out having to lock on to an airborne target. As was advertised for those who committed certs/sc to it.

    SOE is now stating that the ability to fire with out locking on to a target is no longer its intended purpose and likely not what they wanted. SOE is not the only company to do something like this. CCP did this with the feature now bug of something called Ghost Training. Instead they say its because of abuse or reasons of balance. Outside of virtual space when something like this happens companies usually recall their good, such as with a faulty break in a car or a possible contaminate in a peanut butter and refund the consumer or offer an exchange for a working product.

    SOE being in the USA, there are no clear definitions or laws in place on the buying and selling of virtual goods and the practices involved in its exchange. In fact when a consumer exchanges their money for station cash there is no indication of it being taxed. After the exchange your money is no longer bound by the rules of RL but instead that of SOEs. No refunds, ever, because it is their law.

    So to answer your question OP, yes, SOE should give a refund. But will they? Due to no established laws regulating the exchange of virtual commodities in the US, they will not. Because once you made that exchange of RL money for SC, you relinquished any say as to what can be done with it based on a set of rules set out not by any real world governance, but by corporate lawyers, CEOs and shareholders. And where do you think their motives lie? The gamer? The consumer? Or their bottom line?

    For me, it begs the question if something like this will hold up in the court of law. Seeing as there is no real precedent on matters such as this, I doubt SOE hiding behind their little EULA will work out.
  19. NexAnima

    There will be no legal action, there is no ground for any. Read your local/national consumer laws, they are worded plain and simple. All legal threats and propaganda are fueled by the feeling of entitlement, which is the flavor of the generation.
  20. deaded

    You spent cash on an ingame currency called Station Cash. You didnt actually spend cash on the item itself. It becomes bit wishywashy after that, since you get double SC some weekends and holidays, maybe thru future campaigns etc.