PSA: Chase drop rates have been lowered

"Ultra;c-2352149" wrote:

"Wraith_Squadron;c-2352138" wrote:

"Ultra;c-2352067" wrote:

"Wraith_Squadron;c-2352056" wrote:

"CCyrilS;c-2352053" wrote:

"UncleOnceler;c-2352050" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2341961" wrote:

"Wrathe;c-2341960" wrote:
I'm just surprised no one has been slapped in the face yet. :wink:

Someone accusing CG of a "slap in the face" is also assuming this was done on purpose. Given CG's track record, it was probably completely accidental. They just aren't smart enough to have noticed they did it so they could tell us about it.

I'm pretty sure violations of Google play requirements is the same whether on purpose or not.

How's it a violation of anything?

One, if so inclined, could argue (1) that data provided indicates the drop rate for the previous galactic chase was in fact 3% rather than 4%, (2) CG was aware of or should have been aware of the reduction in the shard drop rate, (3) CG failed to properly notify its customers of the aforementioned change, (4) due to the aforementioned change in the shard drop rate, players received fewer shards when spending in game currency resulting in some players purchasing more in game currency to make up for the reduced shard drop rate, and (5) CG’s failure to notify its customers in this matter is tantamount to fraudulent and deceptive advertising practices.

EA is especially sensitive to these kind of issues due to the various legal actions taken against them because of “loot boxes” as well as other well known mobile games being sued for deceptive and predatory practices. These are merely some of the issues that I would be concerned with if were corporate counsel for CG.

Lots of leaps being made here, that frogger was able to get to the other side

Interesting analogy. Feel free to expand and converse rather than offer a snarky quip. No? Then move along muppet.

Drop rates are subject to change, it was true back when they claimed it was 4% and there is no law stating CG has to announce publicly when drop rates are changed. What is true today can be changed next week and they will have every right to do so

What they lose is consumer confidence

But you just said they made 5 violations, so post the google play’s specific violations from their terms of service unless you made up the fact that your bullet points are violations without checking and confirming if it violated the play store

Then why reply with false and made up information?

1. Not a play store violation
2. Not a play store violation
3. Please post where in the play store guidelines this is a violation
4. Business decision - not a play store violation
5. lol - consult a lawyer - the play store doesn’t demand they announce drop rate changes

I didn’t want to expand the conversation because you made up the violations without looking at the play store and didn’t want to further make believe conversations that aren’t grounded in reality

If you can leave the insults behind and actually do your research before commenting on posts with facts, then we can continue conversing :smile:

That’s the great thing about legal theory. It’s based on the information available and a judge gets to decide if the allegations are legitimate enough to warrant the case to continue. If so, the case goes to evidentiary discovery and depositions allowing the aggrieved party to drill down and find information to support its position. My summation was based on previous case law with similar enough factual patterns supporting a theoretical argument that CG has and continues to engage in predatory and misleading advertising. It was also in response to an open ended question which resulted in my comments in the most legal and official of formats…a swgoh forum. Notwithstanding your analysis of this issue, I still believe an argument could be made that CG potentially violated general business practices not protected or covered by CGs terms of service in the play store. Finally, with respect to your fifth point, I did consult a lawyer…two in fact…(who have previously served for legislative bodies and elected officials, as prosecutors and administrative judges) and we did read relevant case law and pending suits in similar matters. Now my wife may be a better lawyer than I am but she also believes the arguments made have sufficient legal standing as to continued to be explored if one was so inclined. I also didn’t realize that this forum was so official as to require specific fact patterns be set forth in a legal document before being allowed to offer a different perspective. I must have missed that requirement in looking at all your previous posts in this forum over the last several years.

Finally, you commenting on insults is a pot meet kettle situation if I’ve heard one. If you’d like to continue this conversation Kermit, feel free to IM me. ? cheers.