"Ralakili0383;c-2351894" wrote:
Still no communication. Ultra and his empty promises..
"Ultra;c-2351906" wrote:"Ralakili0383;c-2351894" wrote:
Still no communication. Ultra and his empty promises..
I said i pinged them
I said i'll try to get them to make a post (via messaging them)
That's all i can do
I can't barge in to their houses and make them post things they don't want to
They can ignore my pings if they want
They can choose to not follow-up if they want
I'm not promising anything here, bro
"NormalSizedAnnie;c-2351967" wrote:
I’d spam the mess out of some personal and work email addresses.
"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.
"CCyrilS;c-2352048" wrote:"NormalSizedAnnie;c-2351967" wrote:
I’d spam the mess out of some personal and work email addresses.
There's a reason they don't let just anyone be a mod.
"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.
"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.
"Ultra;c-2352149" wrote:
5. lol - consult a lawyer - the play store doesn’t demand they announce drop rate changes
"Ralakili0383;c-2352212" wrote:"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:
Instead of making this lengthy post you could spend your energy getting CG to reply to what the community wants to know. @CG_Tusken_Meathead isn't really any more active than Crumb. Both community managers are rather inactive at best.
