A ToTaL Refund

[orangenee]

Well, actually the little ticky box that you find at the end of all these things, serves as 'proof' that you read it. Whether you did or not, that's on you, not the company. That's why everyone jokes about selling their souls to a company, because few read and just tick the box to get on with it, but the ticky box does the job of showing you read and agreed to the contract and it is indeed a contract. Even the IRS accepts virtual signatures and holds them as binding.

 

To be fair if it comes to a court case involving such ToS agreements it's the judge who determines the legality of said terms. It's effectively case by case. Some judges laugh them out the court, some treat them as actual contracts. There isn't really a consensus.

 

They have to be very careful with the wording over here in the EU as if it contravenes an EU law or even guideline it'll be tossed aside without mercy.

 

People are afraid of them nonetheless as most don't have a crack squad of lawyers on the payroll.

[casirabit]

So who do I send my lawyers after to get a full refund for the 22,000+ USD I spent to play this game and keep it running so I can keep playing??

 

Now being Forced to Quit a Game I love for so Long, it's Cold, and it's messing with The Consumer Rights Act.

 

The same lawyers SWG players used when they closed SWG.

 

It was released in June 26, 2003 and closed officially in June 15, 2011 and some of us stayed through all the changes so you complain you want a refund, well when they give the people who played SWG a refund then we can talk.

Edited October 29, 2017 by casirabit

[orangenee]

Ah yeah, SWG had a merciless long death too didn't it.

[Eshvara]

I do think however the APAC players deserve a refund, more than just a month imo. This was clearly planned ahead and no warning was given to the players so they could decide whether to cancel their sub or not. Instead they chose to not say anything until the last moment.

That isn't really how you treat your customers.

 

Idk about that 22k$ but I'd say a sub refund at the least.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Eshvara

[fushnchips]

I mean I have played this game since launched and have been subbed the entire time + spent a heap on the CM when it was released later in the game but 22k nah I think this guy might be getting 2.2k mixed up lol or he forgot to say it was 22,000 Thai baht.

[Zhedzaban]

I do think however the APAC players deserve a refund, more than just a month imo. This was clearly planned ahead and no warning was given to the players so they could decide whether to cancel their sub or not. Instead they chose to not say anything until the last moment.

That isn't really how you treat your customers.

 

Idk about that 22k$ but I'd say a sub refund at the least.

 

nah, I don't need or want a refund. Services provided up to this point have been good so Bioware can keep what I've spent on their products, no regrets there. And my subscription is cancelled so no issues their either as I'm not going ot quibble over 2 months sub. I did buy a $100 cc pack right before this announcement ($138 after conversion) so I wouldn't mind that back as it's useless to me now

 

Despite my anger I don't want this game to fail or see Bioware close, even though i can't play anymore I know there are thousands of northern hemisphere players who still can and for you I hope the journey continues for a long time yet.

[IoNonSoEVero]

I do think however the APAC players deserve a refund, more than just a month imo. This was clearly planned ahead and no warning was given to the players so they could decide whether to cancel their sub or not. Instead they chose to not say anything until the last moment.

That isn't really how you treat your customers.

 

Idk about that 22k$ but I'd say a sub refund at the least.

 

I think they deserve a refund for any time paid for after the date the data center was moved, if their game has become unplayable. Lots of people seem to do prepaid cards/time, and if you paid for six months or a year and find yourself unable to play the game due to a bad ping that is beyond their control, it's reasonable to want a refund for that, IMHO.

[SaerethDL]

While we're at it, I want the money back I invested in my ex-wife too.

[fushnchips]

While we're at it, I want the money back I invested in my ex-wife too.

 

Yeah I wish I could get a refund on that to lol but we are all out of luck on that one

[orangenee]

While we're at it, I want the money back I invested in my ex-wife too.

 

A man after my own heart. Fortunately mine was reasonably cheap to get rid of.

[Dayshadow]

Well, actually the little ticky box that you find at the end of all these things, serves as 'proof' that you read it. Whether you did or not, that's on you, not the company. That's why everyone jokes about selling their souls to a company, because few read and just tick the box to get on with it, but the ticky box does the job of showing you read and agreed to the contract and it is indeed a contract. Even the IRS accepts virtual signatures and holds them as binding.

 

You're not listening. It doesn't serve as proof of anything. EA doesn't get to make up the law as they see fit with a TOS. It would never hold up in court. But again, the TOS is not a legal defense and has never been used as such when game maker is sued. That's not the purpose of a TOS. In terms of legal action it would actually have more to do with their ability to come after YOU if YOU do something wrong. Although even then they wouldn't need it as copyright and distribution laws exist with or without it. I'm simply referring to them making clear what you can and can't do with the software. Even if they tried to use a TOS a minor, for example, cannot sign a legally binding contract. You don't know who clicked that little box nor can you prove it. There are too many issues with them. Especially the fact that you've already purchased the product and used it prior to the TOS. To stand any chance of being a legal contract you would have to sign a TOS before you purchased the item.

 

The IRS does not have any click this to agree crap that is legally binding. What the IRS may have is a document that requires your specific credentials to access and furthermore a notice that if you lie about who you are when submitting it it's a federal crime punishable by jail time. The TOS in some video is not the same thing. Not even close.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Dayshadow

[Lunafox]

To be fair if it comes to a court case involving such ToS agreements it's the judge who determines the legality of said terms. It's effectively case by case. Some judges laugh them out the court, some treat them as actual contracts. There isn't really a consensus.

 

They have to be very careful with the wording over here in the EU as if it contravenes an EU law or even guideline it'll be tossed aside without mercy.

 

People are afraid of them nonetheless as most don't have a crack squad of lawyers on the payroll.

 

Indeed, it is a judge that makes the decision, and while I'm relatively versed in these things, I'm no expert on international law, every country is different. Still it's my belief that a company like EA/Bioware would have legal see to it their butts are covered.

 

And that's the thing, most people don't have the means to retain lawyers to fight corporations. I think the best advice in this situation is to approach the company/customer service, in a professional way (be polite, please and thanks etc) and lay out the situation and what you'd like to see out of it, within reason. No one is going to get 22K worth of reparations, but I could see someone being reimbursed for a few months worth of sub, if they went for the 6 mth deal, and maybe, if they're feeling generous, they might refund for a pack, like someone said they'd bought. That's my thinking anyway. It's probably better, cheaper and less stressful to go this route rather than through lawyers.

 

I just want to say I'm not being unsympathetic in any way, I just don't want to see people make things worse for themselves.

[orangenee]

If you've got 22K to toss at a game even over a long period you aren't doing too badly, so, I agree Luna, not worth it.

 

It'd end up costing more to recover than it would to count it as a loss and move on. The only people who ever win, guaranteed, are the lawyers. Oh and the courts themselves.

[Lunafox]

You're not listening. It doesn't serve as proof of anything. EA doesn't get to make up the law as they see fit with a TOS. It would never hold up in court. But again, the TOS is not a legal defense and has never been used as such when game maker is sued. That's not the purpose of a TOS. In terms of legal action it would actually have more to do with their ability to come after YOU if YOU do something wrong. Although even then they wouldn't need it as copyright and distribution laws exist with or without it. I'm simply referring to them making clear what you can and can't do with the software. Even if they tried to use a TOS a minor, for example, cannot sign a legally binding contract. You don't know who clicked that little box nor can you prove it. There are too many issues with them. Especially the fact that you've already purchased the product and used it prior to the TOS. To stand any chance of being a legal contract you would have to sign a TOS before you purchased the item.

 

The IRS does not have any click this to agree crap that is legally binding. What the IRS may have is a document that requires your specific credentials to access and furthermore a notice that if you lie about who you are when submitting it it's a federal crime punishable by jail time. The TOS in some video is not the same thing. Not even close.

 

EA isn't making up any laws, they're providing their standard agreement with these things and it's created to protect their company and yes, that includes what they can do, if you don't abide by the terms and conditions agreed upon.

 

The ticky box is actually called Clickwrap Binding and it is legally binding.

 

The reason a clickwrap agreement is binding is that the user agrees to the document by demonstrating their intention, which they do by checking off the box. It makes no difference if the person has read, or even understands the terms, so long as the person agrees. Saying that you don't understand or didn't read it, won't hold up, because you waived that right by agreeing. The person has had every chance to read, ask questions to make things clearer, and they have every right NOT to click the box if they don't agree, or haven't read, or don't understand.

 

For the clickwrap to be considered binding, the terms must be on the page, near the clicky box, so it can be read. Or a link to the terms.

 

The other thing is that unless you click that button, you can't proceed any further with registering and such. You HAVE to click the box.

 

The more prominent the terms are, whether in written text on the page, or with a link, the more binding it is. The text next to the box clearly indicates that the person signing up agrees to the terms as written or in the link.

Usually, this type is fairly large and clear. Sometimes if there isn't a link, there's a box where you can scroll through the information above or next to the clicky box.

 

You say that 'there is no proof of who actually did the clicking?" Well, that doesn't stand up either, as the information is kept on record and it includes whether the box was checked, or not, and it includes date, time, IP address, plus any other registration information you might have filled out prior to that.

 

The IRS uses a slightly different document and you do click that you have posted honestly and truthfully, or you'll get punished but their process is called a PDF Docusign, so it's slightly different.

 

Either way, the laws are different, the above tends to be accepted in Canada and the US...but as I said, laws are different everywhere. If people want to spend the money and run to a lawyer, I'm sure as hell not stopping anyone, I just personally believe that it would be more expense than it's worth. I've said my piece, I'm done here, so agree or don't, you have every right to check things out for yourself, and I would recommend to anyone to do that for themselves.

[Eshvara]

nah, I don't need or want a refund. Services provided up to this point have been good so Bioware can keep what I've spent on their products, no regrets there. And my subscription is cancelled so no issues their either as I'm not going ot quibble over 2 months sub. I did buy a $100 cc pack right before this announcement ($138 after conversion) so I wouldn't mind that back as it's useless to me now

 

Despite my anger I don't want this game to fail or see Bioware close, even though i can't play anymore I know there are thousands of northern hemisphere players who still can and for you I hope the journey continues for a long time yet.

 

I guess it's up to you if you dont mind your money going straight into the pockets of that company that screwed you over!

I would care, not so much because of the however many £ of useless sub, but because they really don't deserve it. They're such a disgusting bunch of worthless suits.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Eshvara

[PorsaLindahl]

You should send your lawyers to Gary, the intern. He handles these kind of things (besides coding, artwork and class balancing).

 

I called Gary. He said any complaints are to be directed to Helen Waite. To confirm I asked him "Helen Waite?"

 

He said "Yes. Go to Helen Waite."

 

[Gokkus]

Sure, just prove that you did not make any use of the services for which you paid money. So as long as you did not play the game or use any of the in-game items you purchased, I'd say a refund is reasonable.

 

If you did play the game though, or used the items you paid for, I can think of no reason why you should get your money back.

It is like finishing a meal in a restaurant and afterwards complain that you want your money back.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Gokkus

[Lunafox]

I called Gary. He said any complaints are to be directed to Helen Waite. To confirm I asked him "Helen Waite?"

 

He said "Yes. Go to Helen Waite."

 

 

Cute, I love it. Thanks for that.

[Dayshadow]

EA isn't making up any laws, they're providing their standard agreement with these things and it's created to protect their company and yes, that includes what they can do, if you don't abide by the terms and conditions agreed upon.

 

The ticky box is actually called Clickwrap Binding and it is legally binding.

 

The reason a clickwrap agreement is binding is that the user agrees to the document by demonstrating their intention, which they do by checking off the box. It makes no difference if the person has read, or even understands the terms, so long as the person agrees. Saying that you don't understand or didn't read it, won't hold up, because you waived that right by agreeing. The person has had every chance to read, ask questions to make things clearer, and they have every right NOT to click the box if they don't agree, or haven't read, or don't understand.

 

For the clickwrap to be considered binding, the terms must be on the page, near the clicky box, so it can be read. Or a link to the terms.

 

The other thing is that unless you click that button, you can't proceed any further with registering and such. You HAVE to click the box.

 

The more prominent the terms are, whether in written text on the page, or with a link, the more binding it is. The text next to the box clearly indicates that the person signing up agrees to the terms as written or in the link.

Usually, this type is fairly large and clear. Sometimes if there isn't a link, there's a box where you can scroll through the information above or next to the clicky box.

 

You say that 'there is no proof of who actually did the clicking?" Well, that doesn't stand up either, as the information is kept on record and it includes whether the box was checked, or not, and it includes date, time, IP address, plus any other registration information you might have filled out prior to that.

 

The IRS uses a slightly different document and you do click that you have posted honestly and truthfully, or you'll get punished but their process is called a PDF Docusign, so it's slightly different.

 

Either way, the laws are different, the above tends to be accepted in Canada and the US...but as I said, laws are different everywhere. If people want to spend the money and run to a lawyer, I'm sure as hell not stopping anyone, I just personally believe that it would be more expense than it's worth. I've said my piece, I'm done here, so agree or don't, you have every right to check things out for yourself, and I would recommend to anyone to do that for themselves.

 

Legally binding what exactly? Them saying this is how you can use the software? Them saying this is what you are getting into? It's just a statement. Nothing more. No company can simply write themselves a "get out of jail card" and absolve themselves from liability. If that were the case lawsuits would be impossible as everyone would do this for everything. "Hey, this phone might explode and incarnate your ear and you agree to these conditions by clicking this box." No, the company doesn't get to immunize itself from prosecution nor can it make its own laws. Especially after the item has already been purchased and used. Could you imagine buying a car and then when you start it up you have to click a document on the touchscreen stating the car may or may not work properly and that the engine may or may not explode in order to start the engines and leave the lot. That's basically what you're saying EA can do. If EA is found at fault they can and will be sued. And if they are offering a product that is unplayable they will lose and have to refund remaining subscription money. It's just a technical fact that they knew the results when they made the change. They knew they were effectively kicking APAC and some west coast players out of the game. No TOS is going to save them. That's like saying I can get Direct TV and the service is out all the time, even when it's sunny out, and they would be immune from prosecution if there was a TOS stating "Maybe you'll have service. Maybe you won't." You can't just make up whatever rules you want.

 

It doesn't have to "hold up" because it would never be brought up. And you're not paying attention. If a game is bought in a household of 5, how do you know who clicked the box? How do you know a little kid didn't click it as is the case with many games? Can you bind a minor to a contract? That someone clicked it does not inform you who clicked it. As opposed to something where you have to input your SSN and other pertinent details; something that is backed by federal law and punishable as a crime like your IRS example.

 

It would be a class action lawsuit. No individual is going to sue. Even if they did you can include that EA compensate you for your legal bills in the claim. But first the person needs to be direct and request the refund first and EA needs to deny them.

[merovejec]

And I thought I spent the most on this game

[orangenee]

And I thought I spent the most on this game

 

Get your wallet out brah. EA needs YOU and the entire contents of your bank account.

[merovejec]

Get your wallet out brah. EA needs YOU and the entire contents of your bank account.

 

nah I went over to a "safe regime" now.

[casirabit]

Legally binding what exactly? Them saying this is how you can use the software? Them saying this is what you are getting into? It's just a statement. Nothing more. No company can simply write themselves a "get out of jail card" and absolve themselves from liability. If that were the case lawsuits would be impossible as everyone would do this for everything. "Hey, this phone might explode and incarnate your ear and you agree to these conditions by clicking this box." No, the company doesn't get to immunize itself from prosecution nor can it make its own laws. Especially after the item has already been purchased and used. Could you imagine buying a car and then when you start it up you have to click a document on the touchscreen stating the car may or may not work properly and that the engine may or may not explode in order to start the engines and leave the lot. That's basically what you're saying EA can do. If EA is found at fault they can and will be sued. And if they are offering a product that is unplayable they will lose and have to refund remaining subscription money. It's just a technical fact that they knew the results when they made the change. They knew they were effectively kicking APAC and some west coast players out of the game. No TOS is going to save them. That's like saying I can get Direct TV and the service is out all the time, even when it's sunny out, and they would be immune from prosecution if there was a TOS stating "Maybe you'll have service. Maybe you won't." You can't just make up whatever rules you want.

 

It doesn't have to "hold up" because it would never be brought up. And you're not paying attention. If a game is bought in a household of 5, how do you know who clicked the box? How do you know a little kid didn't click it as is the case with many games? Can you bind a minor to a contract? That someone clicked it does not inform you who clicked it. As opposed to something where you have to input your SSN and other pertinent details; something that is backed by federal law and punishable as a crime like your IRS example.

 

It would be a class action lawsuit. No individual is going to sue. Even if they did you can include that EA compensate you for your legal bills in the claim. But first the person needs to be direct and request the refund first and EA needs to deny them.

 

Except for one thing, while they may sue for not being able to play now, they cannot sue for time they already played on the game, which is what the OP wants. She/He wants to sue for all the time she/he played on the game, which is wrong. They might be able to find a class action suit for time after the change, but not before and most of the money that is gotten from class action lawsuits goes to the lawyers. The petitioners on a class action lawsuit gets very little. Then they would have to prove they couldn't play and then they would have to hire expert witness to prove the point and expert witness can run from $1000 on up an hour depending on the expert witness and the testimony you need for the case. Then you would have to prove your losses, which on a video game, is hard to prove. The foreseeable damages could be the inability to play going forward and then the Court would state that they could have mitigated their damages by cancelling their accounts and therefore mitigated their damages as such. The courts would not give punitive damages from a video game. So the best the OP could get from the Courts would be maybe the last month or two of subscriptions, not the entire time the OP played.

[Dayshadow]

Except for one thing, while they may sue for not being able to play now, they cannot sue for time they already played on the game, which is what the OP wants.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=9455362#post9455362

 

The OP is over emotional and I pointed this out in my first reply to him/her. I'm not talking about what the OP wants. I'm talking about where EA is actually liable.

[Sinhammer]

While we're at it, I want the money back I invested in my ex-wife too.

 

I was thinking about all the money I invested in my ex-gf until I saw this post.

 

*takes hat off and mourns for Saereth*