SOE clawback on purchase errors is awful business

this is an F2P game. cash-shop items are this game's lifeblood. it's no surprise SOE is doing this, because if they let free cash-shop items go, it undermines the business model.

all the analogies the original post attempted are inappropriate because there is a quid pro quo in every situation - you pay money for something on Amazon, you get that item. Amazon doesn't provide you any sort of free service, you have to buy a product first.

in this situation, you're getting a free service - the ability to play the game. the cash-shop items are the bottom line, and SOE can't afford to give them out gratuitously, because they support the free service for other players. the subscriptions are just the cherry on top - extra pay for extra service (resources, exp., queue priority, etc.). the subscription fee offsets the loss of future profit because the subscriber will earn more certs and have a lower need to purchase station cash.

it makes perfect sense why SOE is doing this. if it pisses off or offends certain customers, so be it: they already got that person's money in the past, and there was never a guarantee of profit from them in the future. they could simply go F2P and enjoy their cash-shopped items indefinitely. so letting free items go is a permanent loss of future profit for SOE.

the only surprising thing is that they haven't revoked all of the extra certs given out by the old cert refunds for duplicate purchases, but there was a different justification for that, and maybe it's technologically impossible.

You have to exit the SC store through a screen that shows your current account balance. It's literally right there in front of you on the screen. I'd be surprised if most people dont immediately check it after buying an item on the store.

Either way neither of us have enough information for a long debate on this nor am I interested in one. SOE clearly dont think they have inconvenienced their customers enough to give a free item away. The players in question have lost nothing but the access to something they never paid for. They are probably also considering the fact that letting these players retain these items now would potentially set a precedent in the future should this issue reoccur on a larger scale.

Actually, they do sort of get development cycles - IE: AV Hardware. I work for an Electronics company and we are constantly in a development cycle because not only are we making new products, we are also supporting and revamping current products because our products have to 'work together' with older products.

SWG was toxic because people focused on what Star Wars was in their mind. We see it in the movies as being the cool fighter fights and later some of the cool large scale battles. SWG failed to bring that visual to a lot of people in the initial launch and failed even more when the game became more of a chore and also the little fiasco about being a jedi... It picked also the worst time to set itself, which was during the Empire/Rebellion fight and included the chance of becoming a Jedi. The combat system was also so foolishly RNG that it wasn't nearly as cool as what people were hoping it to be. SOE also, from what I vaguely recall, swore that they would no longer go with a licensed material again due to their ability to develop something in an established universe was difficult, and Star Wars, along with other licensed material, does set a high bar of expectation and no one has been able to make it work well in an MMO. Even KotOR is not doing too well now, heck, I don't play it anymore because I found its venue rather borish after a while.

As for your assumption on the level of competence on behalf of the businesses... That may be bully for you, but that is also a very narrow mindset. Unfortunately, there are MANY more businesses that you are dealing with (Including the very business you are running this game on, namely, Microsoft...) that have done much, much worst if you bother to take a closer look at who you are doing business with on things you don't realize is going on. In the case here, they made it clear what is going on, and also, note, it is also stipulated in the EULA to a degree about certain expectations laid out. So you also cannot say you were not aware of it (Well, technically, if you didn't bother READING the EULA, like many of us, you still can't feint no knowledge, because you agreed to it.)

I disagree, and so did a good few hundred thousand of us. The game was great, it just needed to continue growing. Then, they decided that their few hundred thousand subscribers were not enough, when WoW was heading fast into the millions. LucasArts felt that if only they made the game more like WoW, they would capture a much larger market, and it wouldn't matter that they lost the vast majority of their customer base overnight, because the sheep would flock in... They didn't flock in, and they ruined the game for nothing. Whilst in reality it was most probably entirely LucasArt's fault (certainly from the info that surfaced afterwards it looked like it), it's SOE's reputation that took the larger hit.

It's not an assumption, it's an expectation. It gets checked, but most definitely not at the point of walking out of the supermarket with my shopping. I don't do business with people that fall short of that expectation, unless they can convince me abandoning them is the wrong idea. Most brand loyalty studies show the same thing; customers don't respond well to companies that cause them hassle; convenience is the name of the game, and convenience means accuracy and efficiency.

Then we disagree. SOE made a mistake, and they are correcting that mistake. I see absolutely no issue with this.

And now is a great time to roll out this clawback, because we are just about to head into heavily discounted sales, 99SC daily, 1SC membership, and 50% bulk categories for 2 weeks. I.E. it's highly, highly likely that the items will be on at least 50%, if not more discount, over the next 2 weeks. I.E. they are highly likely to get it for less SC, or at least the same SC, as they intended to purchase it before.

I'm glad that that provides happiness in your life. However, I guarantee that in the corporate world that SOE lives, you don't get 'business plans' for entertainment ventures (movies, games, TV shows) off the ground if it doesn't make money - it either has ROI, or it doesn't pass 'GO'. There are many worlds in which to live, and money isn't #1 in all of them, but you are living in a fantasy land if you think corporations run the way that individuals can.

The key words are "paid for".

A business certainly can absorb the cost of mistakes or computer errors and for some reason is expected to by the consumer but for some reason if a similar error was to occur that made the item cost more they would demand a refund or feel they were entitled to compensation.

Theft is a simple definition. To take or recieve property that is not your own. If you did not pay for it, you don't own it. Don't matter if you walked right out the door or had it sent via email... if you did not pay for it then it does not belong to you.

I have no intention of telling you where I work as it does not matter. Suffice it to say it is a national chain that does several billion a year and it is the policy of our company that you pay for what you recieve.

Again, SOE could, if they chose, to absorb the costs of the mistakes but in all fairness how many here would do the same in return? I thought so.

The issue is simply that it's burning up customer relations for no reason; if it's only a small group of players, and one can assume only a few items each at maximum, it's such a small amount of money that they're permanently black marking themselves for.

I live in exactly the same world; our business plan settles on £1bn in assets as of 2020. If your business plan has 'And this is how we screw everyone out of their money' on each step, you're never getting the go-ahead. Your ROI has to be calculated from your revenue stream, and that's got to be forecast taking into account factors like the attitude your customers have to your business. You'll find it's a lot easier to get a longterm, loyal and happy customer base that provide you a much more reliable revenue stream, by not 'acting like a corporation' in their face all day long. This is the mistake SOE continues to make.

We all know they have to make money, in fact, most of us probably really want them to succeed. What customers don't want is that waved in front of their face all day long, or in this case, slapped about it like a wet fish.

Because they -are- entitled to a refund. It's about who's at fault; that's clearly the person that should be taking the hit in any situation. Here that's SOE. If they'd charged everyone twice, it'd still be SOE.

Rofl, it's definitely not a simple definition, but yours is flat out wrong regardless. I might give you 'to take property that is not your own without permission', but to receive property that is not your own? Enjoy it when I take back all your Christmas presents this year, yeah...

Theft is the act of stealing. Stealing is taking something that does not belong to you, without right or permission (and often considering the intention; to return it or not). In this case, nothing was stolen, no theft occurred. Given that SOE created the entire environment, from currency to payment system to delivery system, it's very clear that them giving you an item -is- providing permission. They also make very certain to ensure that no item (or even access to the game itself) is actually an asset; this is a two way street. You can't steal something that isn't something that can be possessed. They have simply granted you use of something, erroneously.

Shady much... I imagine it's because your business model doesn't in any way reflect this situation and you're aware of it.

The whole point of this thread isn't that SOE has done something illegal, or even against the terms of their own agreement with the players. It's that they're doing something foolish for customer relations by not absorbing the incredibly minimal costs of their own mistake.

And how many of us would absorb the cost of a mistake we'd made? I imagine most of us. I've never met a person who spilled my beer and didn't offer me another...

Also... one has to wonder about the integrity of the consumer base if they leave after being caught with product they did not pay for. I for one tend to be an honest fellow. If I get change back from a teller that is more than I was expecting I speak up and find out WHY. Since there was no massive outcry on the forums about NOT being charged for products I can only assume one of two things.

1)Extremely dense consumer base. So dense they cannot do basic math or have no sense of value of currency since they don't both checking their wallet... ever.

2)Extremely dishonest consumer base. I happen to know of some people that I have spoken to over the past year that noticed they got items for "free" after encountering certain bugs. Do they deserve to keep those items? No. They may not have hacked or taken them in malice but they still need to pay for them.

The sense of entitlement in todays society is out of control. YOU did not pay for something? THEY didn't catch it time? Not YOUR fault right? Stupid drones... can't wait to "shop" there again.. maybe I'll get something else for "free".

I agree with OP.
Much like OP, I am not one of those being effected (I felt it important to mention this first off).

If SOE is the one to screw up on something financial, and it's not a massive event, there's really little to no harm caused by it.

Say only one in 200,000 accounts had this problem (A gross underestimate).
This was addressed VERY shortly after release from beta. There was only about a one week window from the start of this problem to it's being patched.

SOE just never did anything about it. Which, I don't feel they should have at all.
Seriously, they screwed up in a major way, and they fixed it.
So don't go out and repo everything.

There's only a dozen or so accounts with this issue, and after spending nearly a year with everything unlocked, what are the chances that they will be inclined to buy more stuff, after having this taken away after all this time?

It's a bad business model, given how few people saw anything from the mistake (Again, a mistake SOE made with their somewhat appalling programming).

Piracy? Please tell me you're not seriously telling me that you think a deliberate attempt to steal an item from a vendor equals a mistake by a vendor. In the former case it would be the purchaser doing wrong. In the latter it is quite clearly the seller. Infact I'd say that If SOE made a screw up where they effectively sold somebody a gun for 0 Station Cash then frankly trying to take that gun back aught to be considered theft.

The only thing that is similar is that in both cases it is the person who has done the wrong thing who should bear the penalty for it.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. Being a Star Wars fan and having bought many of the Star Wars based games, the more entertaining ones were the X-Wing/Tie Fighter series and the Dark Forces games because they sort of caught the 'essence' of what some of the fans of the game would have enjoyed in general. When I played SWG, I got bored with it quickly because the 'essense' of it was more of a chore than it was fun, despite my dislike for leveling that Everquest had and the same sort of 'grind' that WoW had as well. The reason WoW did reasonably well as a Fantasy genre was they built it from their own setup, built their own story and made well with their own genre and did not make leveling a character seem as painful as Everquest or make the game so painful with upkeeping like SWG did. I was not even enticed to go back to SWG when they brought in the ship stuff because I felt the play was borish and not quite as fun or 'smooth' as I would have liked it. Also, Verant was the studio that was driving it, with SOE and LucasArts blessing it, but over all Verant was not up to the task and the baseline design was not the greatest.

The decisions in how the game play was also driven on the idea it wasn't a pure hack and slash, but the problem is, the overall franchise focused on the battle more than it did the other aspects which is why it faltered and even Everquest 2 still focused more on the hack and slash than the crafting as a means to get going. SOE's still biggest money maker is, and probably still be, Everquest Franchise, although that slightly falters because WoW's penalties aren't as harsh as Everquest's was.

Mind you, you said 'Assume' in your earlier post, therefore, it becomes an assumption. I also stated, you should not set high expectations from any company. I don't and get constantly disappointed with companies. Does this mean I stick with them? No. I have a low opinion of PC manufacturers to car manufacturers and the like, but again, going in with low expectations with anything may seem silly, but so is going in with high expectations for something that you have not put money forth. Again, you expect everything for nothing? The item people got when they didn't pay for it gets taken away with no promise that it is 'for keeps'. You also realize you are arguing over virtual property that is technically, STILL NOT YOURS. You are paying for a service. Or in this case, you are paying for service credit, which can be applied in different ways. Something erroneously given to you, free of charge, is taken back because it was erroneously given to you. Again, the expectation that you are 'owned it' because it is a mistake is a fallacy. It is like expecting someone to wipe your rear because you paid to go into an amusement park and there just happen to be a valet there who was mistakenly told to work there to wipe someone's rear, then get all uppity when the valet finds out he is only suppose to do that for the premium amusement park guests instead of the general admission...

That's an expectation you ASSUMED is your right, but it isn't. Again, this is covered under that EULA that some things will change and you (the customer) agreed to those stipulations. The expectation you have is not what all business have across the board.

Seriously people, before you do anything read the terms and conditions:

Section VII(F)2 (apologies for caps, I copied and pasted)

While it may suck for those people who are losing things; its not entirely unexpected, and may not be particularly good business practice. However, you clicked accept, so suck it up.

You certainly do not do your point justice by talking down to me, or using innuendo. You have no reason to know where I work nor will I give you personal information about me. Shady much?

We are talking about theft from a business. That is what I was defining. If you want to keep using straw man arguements go ahead but it just makes you look foolish.

Bottom line is that SOE is totally in their right to remove access to service not paid for, just like a power company will shut off your power or Netflix will shut off your access to streaming. Why do you think people are in the right to use something they did not pay for? Why would the customers not just step up and pay for what they want like they supposedly already did (or thought they did)?

Toxic customers like these are not wanted by any business. They drain resources to maintain and will encourage others to follow their example causing even more drain on profit and resources.

Cash shop purchases are sort of unwise anyway. What you purchase today can (and likely will) be nerfed into something different tomorrow. At least with cert purchases you know there was no money involved.

But what kind of interest rates do you get from the Bank of Mom?

Witty

I'm on a 24% rate after 6 months, 0% until then. Credit rating stacking ftw.

If 'I'm in civil engineering', or 'I live in Central Europe' is 'personal' for you, I dread to imagine how hard you study your receipts before leaving the supermarket...

There is no difference in legal definition or in principle. Businesses give gifts too. Or have I stolen from one of our contractors when they mailed me a Christmas hamper?

Once again, I never said they weren't within their rights. I said it's bad for customer relations, and it is. Your white knighting doesn't change that this is going to irritate parts of a playerbase that is already in a permanent state of irritation, and that there's simply no -need- for it, whether there's a -right- to or not.

If you can demonstrate in any way where SOE's bottom line would be affected negatively by the retention of such a 'toxic' customer, without spurious concepts of overuse of customer services, I'm happy to concede that toxic customers are a drain to resources. Beyond that, this point has little/nothing to do with SOE's public image and customer relations.

Again, the point is business practice and customer relations. I'm pretty sure that no one has anywhere in the thread stipulated 'OMFG THEY CAN'T DO THIS I'LL SUE!' (remarkably enough ).