Consumer Protection - Ontario, Canada

[Zahstava]

Currently the biggest I have kept up with since it hits closer is this:

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Blizzard-Forced-Give-Koreans-Refunds-Diablo-3-43844.html

 

While it is not the exact same as this situation is does involve refunds and how other countries react as well as how their laws are much better for consumers. They deem blizzard TOS, " was potentially anti-consumerist"

 

In this situation I would not be shocked if someone someone lived their, they would have every reason should they want to get a refund and be backed by their countries own laws. BW says one thing, clearly goes overboard doing something else after continuing to take money for the packs.

 

Yep, exactly. I'm not saying there is any merit to the current situation, just that the people practically gloating and saying that BW can do whatever they want and there is no potential liability are 100% wrong. Even EA has has had to get out the ol' checkbook before as a result of class actions. Of course that settlement usually comes "without admitting any wrongdoing." But, as always the only people that ever win are the lawyers.

[Malastare]

The last time I checked neither cartel coins nor in-game credits were a RL currency. What the players paid for are cartel coins and as long as player got those cartel coins, they got exactly what they paid for.

Just another benefit of having an intermediary between an in-game shop and a credit card.

 

More importantly, their "damages" amount to: A drastic reduction in the amount of virtual game items (which have no real world value) they can sell to buy other virtual game items (which also have no real world value).

 

I mean, the whole chain is just so tenuous to begin with: They made an assumption that probabilities wouldn't change, and paid real money to get game items (Cartel Coins) which gave them a chance to get a game item (Slot Machine) which they used game currency (credits) to obtain game tokens which could be traded for a chance to win game items (junk, rep, certificates) which were sold on a game market to obtain an increase in game currency.

 

If you think that a reduction in probabilities on the tokens-to-rewards transfer is the basis for a lawsuit, then I don't want to ever have you as a customer.

 

Because seriously: You're whining about the fact that you lost your chance to make huge profits of fake money in a video game.

[Heat-Wave]

This is what I find most puzzling.

 

Game has been stripped, over and over again, ever since Vanilla, but the very thing some people are most preoccupied is a slot machine.

 

That, in addition to some stuff post-SoR still not working as intended.

 

If those issues didn't exist, I don't think the slot machine would be such an issue.

 

It was the last drop of water the overfilled the glass, the last straw that broke the camel's back.

 

It is the final issue that sent a whole lot of people over the edge. Had Bioware been taking care of the game and customers, had they released a decent product, had they not allowed flaws in 3.0 to last for 7 weeks... THEN FOCUS ON A SLOT MACHINE INSTEAD OF FIXING THE GAME, then perhaps customers would be more forgiving...

[Kalfear]

I have used the services of my Ministry of Government and Consumer Services ... [/url]states:

 

WOW not kinda ashamed to be Canadian right now reading this junk

 

This is what I find most puzzling.

 

Game has been stripped, over and over again, ever since Vanilla, but the very thing some people are most preoccupied is a slot machine.

 

That, in addition to some stuff post-SoR still not working as intended.

 

Bingo

 

I dont find it puzzleing tho

New age player wants faster, easier, free

Slots gave them that

 

Oh many try to deflect saying they just want the pay outs adjusted but when you read their "adjustment suggestions" its pretty clear they want a IWIN button back.

 

But I agree, so many more important things from long ago need fixing and addressing that slots dont even break the top 100 list honestly.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Kalfear

[Choloe]

You do realize a video games ToS does not supersede actual law, correct?

 

ROFL... This is so true it's sad. And within the United States as well, the changes to the CSM falls into "Bait and Switch"...

 

I'm quite positive BioWare's LEGAL department is looking into this which is why we've not hear a word...

 

I've CONFIRMED with the State of New Jersey department of Consumer Affairs and Ms Kelly in Trenton told me that they would be happy to assist me in filing a report, but she also said that it would most likely not do anything at all because (paraphrasing her here): "Software companies that operate like this are hard to tackle when they pull stuff like this. Most show corporate filings outside of the United States."

 

I did NOT file a claim, but I'm very tempted to.

[OddballEasyEight]

You are welcome to let your rights be trampled on. I choose not to.

 

I'm sure Rosa Parks is rolling in her grave right now...

[Brewski]

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/class-action-lawsuit-commenced-over-buggy-battlefield-4-ea-calls-it-meritless-update/1100-6416790/

"materially false and misleading statements"

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/29/service-valve-australian-consumer-watchdog

Failure to offer appropriate refunds.

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/01/23/psn-class-action-settlement-do-you-qualify

Failure to protect consumer interests.

 

There are many more. And no, none of these are for the exact situation, but still the answer to your question is yes.

 

The first one was dismissed as "puffery".

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/10/22/battlefield-4-class-action-lawsuit-dismissed-on-puffery/

 

The second one is dealing with product refunds, which I put in a different class than the slot machine, and is still pending.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/08/valve-responds-to-being-sued-by-the-accc/

 

The third one deals with a massive outage of service plus the loss of personal data (including credit cards) to a user base. It's more akin to a class action lawsuit against Target for their loss of customer credit card info than the current situation.

 

 

I don't see these as particularly relevant to the situation we have here, but maybe that's just me.

[Heat-Wave]

Because seriously: You're whining about the fact that you lost your chance to make huge profits of fake money in a video game.

 

The fact that you think that is the issue tells me that you simply don't understand what is going on.

 

Really, you don't...

[Pagy]

The fact that you think that is the issue tells me that you simply don't understand what is going on.

 

Really, you don't...

you're welcome to explain because i still dont see how you or anyone is entitled to reparations over how you spend your virtual currency in a video game, least of all on random number generator minigames. Edited January 26, 2015 by Pagy

[Heat-Wave]

you're welcome to explain because i still dont see how you or anyone is entitled to reparations over how you spend your virtual currency in a video game, least of all on random number generator minigames.

 

It has been explained over and over and over... and yet people keep posting the same thing over and over...

 

Too many people are talking and not listening... "talking past each other" is what I like to call it...

[Zahstava]

The first one was dismissed as "puffery".

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/10/22/battlefield-4-class-action-lawsuit-dismissed-on-puffery/

 

The second one is dealing with product refunds, which I put in a different class than the slot machine, and is still pending.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/08/valve-responds-to-being-sued-by-the-accc/

 

The third one deals with a massive outage of service plus the loss of personal data (including credit cards) to a user base. It's more akin to a class action lawsuit against Target for their loss of customer credit card info than the current situation.

 

I don't see these as particularly relevant to the situation we have here, but maybe that's just me.

 

The question was do these things ever get past the forum state, and the answer is yes. The point is there is liability here, and the poster above who speculates that BW legal is taking a close look at this is probably correct.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Zahstava

[Choloe]

The fact that you think that is the issue tells me that you simply don't understand what is going on.

 

Really, you don't...

 

QFE!!!!

 

This has LITTLE to do with what I may or may not have made "in profit" in the game - in fact, I could not care less about in-game credits. I paid REAL MONEY for the 2 Hypercrates... Under the assumption that there was going to be a SMALL CHANGE to JAWA JUNK (Purple drops)... BioWare turned around and made the product I paid for USELESS!

 

Or, I'll put it another way:

 

You buy a box that connects to the internet that can play thousands of songs. All you have to do is connect it, download the latest update, and play your favorite music as much as you want...

 

Then, a bunch of people complain that they can't afford the box and that it's not fair that you get to listen to all the music you want, and they can't.

 

So the Devs upload an "adjustment" that only lets you hear Justin Bieber songs...

 

When you complain about it, the trolls come out and tell you that no one put a gun to your head and forced you to buy the box, and that you can get your music from other sources.

[Brewski]

You've edited out the rest of my comment conveniently. The question was do these things ever get past the forum state, and the answer is yes. The point is there is liability here, and the poster above who speculates that BW legal is taking a close look at this is probably correct.

 

Your post was quoted in its entirety, so I'm not sure what you are complaining about tin the first part.

 

To the second point, my response was not a repudiation of your claims that there are lawsuits filed, as clearly there are. It was just a further clarification on my side that I'm not seeing any filed for something at this level, which is clearly nowhere near the successful examples you cited.

 

My apologies if it was taken as an an insult. It wasn't intended that way.

[chosonman]

Lol the op doesnt have a clue. This is a video game. No bioware didn't mislead anyone. If that were the case someone could sue every patch release and the game would be dead.

[Pagy]

It has been explained over and over and over... and yet people keep posting the same thing over and over...

 

Too many people are talking and not listening... "talking past each other" is what I like to call it...

so youre not going to explain then?

[Pagy]

QFE!!!!

 

This has LITTLE to do with what I may or may not have made "in profit" in the game - in fact, I could not care less about in-game credits. I paid REAL MONEY for the 2 Hypercrates... Under the assumption that there was going to be a SMALL CHANGE to JAWA JUNK (Purple drops)... BioWare turned around and made the product I paid for USELESS!

 

Or, I'll put it another way:

 

You buy a box that connects to the internet that can play thousands of songs. All you have to do is connect it, download the latest update, and play your favorite music as much as you want...

 

Then, a bunch of people complain that they can't afford the box and that it's not fair that you get to listen to all the music you want, and they can't.

 

So the Devs upload an "adjustment" that only lets you hear Justin Bieber songs...

 

When you complain about it, the trolls come out and tell you that no one put a gun to your head and forced you to buy the box, and that you can get your music from other sources.

you didn't buy the box

 

you bought cartel coins.

 

try again.

[dawg_bone]

Say you purchased an adaptive armour set with cartel coins.

 

BW then decides there is no such thing as adaptive armour anymore, including all previously purchased armour. They switch the armour you are using to heavy and your toon can only use medium/light, which means you have to rip all armour/mods/enhancements/augments out and reapply them to a different armour set.

 

Technically this does not violate the ToS correct?

[GuruVII]

This has LITTLE to do with what I may or may not have made "in profit" in the game - in fact, I could not care less about in-game credits. I paid REAL MONEY for the 2 Hypercrates... Under the assumption that there was going to be a SMALL CHANGE to JAWA JUNK (Purple drops)... BioWare turned around and made the product I paid for USELESS!

Let makes this clear, because people have a hard time grasping this YOU DID NOT PAY REAL MONEY FOR HYPER CREATES. You paid for with real money are cartel coins and as long as you got them, you got exactly what your paid for.

Edited January 26, 2015 by GuruVII

[Thoronmir]

you're welcome to explain because i still dont see how you or anyone is entitled to reparations over how you spend your virtual currency in a video game, least of all on random number generator minigames.

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate ...

 

You're missing the point that players spent real-world money to acquire the CCs to buy the packs for a chance to get the magical slot-machine-of-in-game-currency-wealth. The moment real Dollars or Euros or whatevers come into play, the situation changes.

 

To supplement my earlier self-important lecture, only players who purchased CCs for the limited purpose of buying the packs would fall into the potential class of plaintiffs. Those (like me) who use their VIP CCs are left in the cold because we have not spent real-world money for the CCs (VIP CCs are a "bonus" for subscribing and I doubt anyone could succeed in parsing how much of my $15 is "for" CCs versus "hide helmet", "fleet transport" or the myriad other benefits I get for subscribing.

 

While I'm convinced any litigation on the issue is ill-conceived and doomed, I get why players are upset. I might be too. And the lack of civil liability does not mean EA shouldn't embrace a reasonable remedy ... just for PR reasons alone. I've mediated scores of cases and have learned that the parties usually end up splitting the claim in half. If I ran EA, I'd give a refund of 50% of the CCs spent by anyone who bought CCs and bought packs between the time Eric declared the slots working as intended (and not an exploit) and the announcement of the nerfing of Jawa Junk.

 

It would be like Macy's giving in-store credit on a return ... it's not as if the players can spend CC anywhere else.

[Pagy]

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate ...

 

You're missing the point that players spent real-world money to acquire the CCs to buy the packs for a chance to get the magical slot-machine-of-in-game-currency-wealth. The moment real Dollars or Euros or whatevers come into play, the situation changes.

 

To supplement my earlier self-important lecture, only players who purchased CCs for the limited purpose of buying the packs would fall into the potential class of plaintiffs. Those (like me) who use their VIP CCs are left in the cold because we have not spent real-world money for the CCs (VIP CCs are a "bonus" for subscribing and I doubt anyone could succeed in parsing how much of my $15 is "for" CCs versus "hide helmet", "fleet transport" or the myriad other benefits I get for subscribing.

 

While I'm convinced any litigation on the issue is ill-conceived and doomed, I get why players are upset. I might be too. And the lack of civil liability does not mean EA shouldn't embrace a reasonable remedy ... just for PR reasons alone. I've mediated scores of cases and have learned that the parties usually end up splitting the claim in half. If I ran EA, I'd give a refund of 50% of the CCs spent by anyone who bought CCs and bought packs between the time Eric declared the slots working as intended (and not an exploit) and the announcement of the nerfing of Jawa Junk.

 

It would be like Macy's giving in-store credit on a return ... it's not as if the players can spend CC anywhere else.

it would be a good business practice for sure; would make a lot of people happier.

 

but still, i can't get to thinking they are entitled to it...they bought cartel coins and got cartel coins. then they bought items that provide *a chance* to get this item...and items change in the game all the time. in this case, were even warned.

 

i sold my slot machines asap because i totally smelled this coming. im not sure how people could be surprised by this.

[Bristol]

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate ...

 

You're missing the point that players spent real-world money to acquire the CCs to buy the packs for a chance to get the magical slot-machine-of-in-game-currency-wealth. The moment real Dollars or Euros or whatevers come into play, the situation changes.

 

To supplement my earlier self-important lecture, only players who purchased CCs for the limited purpose of buying the packs would fall into the potential class of plaintiffs. Those (like me) who use their VIP CCs are left in the cold because we have not spent real-world money for the CCs (VIP CCs are a "bonus" for subscribing and I doubt anyone could succeed in parsing how much of my $15 is "for" CCs versus "hide helmet", "fleet transport" or the myriad other benefits I get for subscribing.

 

While I'm convinced any litigation on the issue is ill-conceived and doomed, I get why players are upset. I might be too. And the lack of civil liability does not mean EA shouldn't embrace a reasonable remedy ... just for PR reasons alone. I've mediated scores of cases and have learned that the parties usually end up splitting the claim in half. If I ran EA, I'd give a refund of 50% of the CCs spent by anyone who bought CCs and bought packs between the time Eric declared the slots working as intended (and not an exploit) and the announcement of the nerfing of Jawa Junk.

 

It would be like Macy's giving in-store credit on a return ... it's not as if the players can spend CC anywhere else.

 

THIS, so very THIS!

 

BW/EA, publically admit that you acknowledge that you rolled the dice and the odds showed that harming your customers outweighed the cost of making it right.

[Lunafox]

I understand what you're trying to do and appreciate it OP, but I have little doubt that somewhere in the document where we agree to sell our souls to EA/Bioware, it says 'items and services are subject to change...possibly with no discussion entered into...'

 

That line pretty much absolves them from anything.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Lunafox

[Bristol]

it would be a good business practice for sure; would make a lot of people happier.

 

but still, i can't get to thinking they are entitled to it...they bought cartel coins and got cartel coins. then they bought items that provide *a chance* to get this item...and items change in the game all the time. in this case, were even warned.

 

i sold my slot machines asap because i totally smelled this coming. im not sure how people could be surprised by this.

 

So, because you are more accustomed to being told half-truths than I am, I deserve to be punished for expecting accurate communication between corporation and consumer?

[Thoronmir]

it would be a good business practice for sure; would make a lot of people happier.

 

but still, i can't get to thinking they are entitled to it...they bought cartel coins and got cartel coins. then they bought items that provide *a chance* to get this item...and items change in the game all the time. in this case, were even warned.

 

i sold my slot machines asap because i totally smelled this coming. im not sure how people could be surprised by this.

Your points are all facts that EA's lawyers would assert in the process of laying waste to any litigation over this. And I agree. It's not an issue of entitlement. It's an issue of that angry mob with their torches and pitchforks and whether EA wants to diffuse the situation.

[Quraswren]

As all the digital rights for consumers moves forward even for this subject, I like this quote:

 

“There will be increasing pressure from consumer protection laws,” Gardner said. “And it’s not based on new laws, but existing laws. You have to think about it when designing a game. Ask yourself what is fair and reasonable.”

 

The slot machine change was not fair nor reasonable given BW's statements. The Op may not have any legal ground but if I was on the jury, he'd get a refund.

 

I'm very tired of virtual goods being a multi-billion dollar money maker and then it having such a downside to consumers because a game company wants to pull the rug out from under you after they have your money and it all boils do to their poor planning.