Regarding Heroine Bundle Purchases

Anything short of a 4 star Luminara with enough gear to get her up to gear level 6 isn't going to cut it here. I paid hard earned money for the healer that was destroying me every time I came up against her. Not this current useless gimmick. Now I'm getting worked over having not gone after Luminara from day 1.

Pokebreaker - you and those like you need to understand something. Agreeing to "Terms of Service" is not the 100% shutdown you seem to think it is. Let's take this to extremes... Say they decided to change every one of the current characters to have abilities equal to Teebo and Night sister Acolyte. Then they released all new characters that actually do something, but they're pay only. Do you honestly believe they'd be able to hide behind TOS? Nope. Enforceability of something like that is entirely dependent on the userbases level of acceptance.

In this case they pushed to far. Tons of people are rightfully getting their money back and EA is feeling it. I don't give a flying leap what I agree to... if I buy a super powerful game item and they change it to be garbage, I'm not bound by the TOS. This not the same as buying gems and using them on a character that ended up getting worse. This is actually taking away the item you bought and replacing it with something else that has the same name. That's not legal no matter what the TOS says.

"Keaven;15091" wrote:

.
.
.
For example, when purchasing a product include acknowledgment prompt with information stating:

Items purchased are subject to changes which may be deemed suitable for balancing gameplay experience. This will not occur prior to 1 month from purchase.

If something like that were applied, most importantly the time frame, it would help avoid this issue in the future.
.
.
.

a proper team of software testers, i.e. ISTQB certified specialists would prevent this in the future...

The steak analogy isn't the best, but still applicable.
Even when signing, agreeing to a contract, there are still legal remedies when good faith and reasonableness are violated or if negligence or malfeasance applies. Otherwise, any scam can be perpetrated by simply getting one to sign a contract.
I don't believe this was a scam. But there is a legitimate complaint here given the circumstances and timing. EA/CG are seeking a remedy, and it's certainly a reassuring sign toward demonstrating good faith.

Yeah, a better analogy would be leasing a car and a month later the dealership came to your house in the middle of the night and replaced the car you leased with a cheaper car model. No Lease Agreement would save the car dealership from the lessee.

"Vampire_X;15234" wrote:
Terms of service keeps being thrown out here but your not smart marks (wrestling term for knowing the gimmicks)

Terms decide how your allowed to access content, not that they can not be legally liable and in fact if you agree to pay a million dollars in qurora tos as a legal example it's not binding in federal court because terms only apply to access not liability

So stop using tos as to refunds it makes you look ignorant to real law not that truth matters to rant I g internet tough guys

Secondly

Bragging you don't pay makes the developers sad, if you pay nothing your a leech on the game, sorry but that is truth , mobile games need leeches to build competition and strive to encourage purchasing trend but in the end if you do not spend the game ends

Why is that so hard to understand??????? Nothing is free ever and harassing those of us who do are not paying to win we are paying to play, what winning is there?? No money or prizes change hands it's a game.... The perception of your strategy to another's cash is just that a perception neither of us care except that one of us is supporting cg and the other is not

Have a wonderful night

Don't forget to quote/tag next time. Don't be afraid of some conversation.

You can try to rationalize your actions all you want. Some like to use the "I've got money and you don't approach", others use the "I'm just trying to support the developers" approach. There is a difference between pay to play, and pay to win. Pay to play is a subscription based model that exists as either the sole means of play, or as an up/sidegrade to the existing F2P model. Seeing how this game doesn't have a subscription model, pay to play doesn't apply, and everyone is by default F2P. Pay to win are those who make purchases of statistic based items, solely for the purpose of having as large of an advantage as possible, under the rationalization that you deserve the advantage because you contributed however much.

In the real world, this makes absolute sense, given that life as we know it, is not fair. However, video games are designed to be generally fair for everyone involved, with a slight enticement for money contributing players to have a little extra. The Game's that do it best, are ones that offer cosmetics and other non-performance related items for real currency. However, their profit and success can vary.

People have being paying money to play games for decades before mobile gaming and F2P model came around. The P2W players (plague) are why gaming is what it is today; a bunch of reduced/limited/unfinished content offered to the players in additional pay walls. People are willing to voice their opinions, but forget how to vote with their wallets. As long as it benefits you, it's ok, but as soon as you are on the other side of the table, you want justice. Then you get salty when it's pointed out how you ignored the Terms of Service agreement that you and MOST others refuse to read, purely out of laziness. You probably still wonder why you receive spam mail, and don't realize you sign away privacy rights when you create "free" accounts with certain companies.

CG making a consolation offering doesn't mean the ToS doesn't work or isn't valid, it means they recognize their fault in the particular timing in which they instituted the character change. You can bet that players like yourself will buy another character, looking for extreme advantage, and that character will go through nerfs/buffs (I doubt you would complain about a buff though). Are you going to cry every time you make P2W decision and it changes on you.

As far I could tell, there was NOTHING in the advertisement of her character pack that displayed her stats, nor promised she would perform at the levels she did. You received that information through third party means, and not an official advertisement. So what happened with the other stuff that cane in the pack? Did they change for better or worse? Did anything else get devalued?

Good night, Human CentiPad.

Good on the Devs. Definitely helps in renewing some faith that your player base isn't entirely irrelevant.

"Pokebreaker;15267" wrote:


As far I could tell, there was NOTHING in the advertisement of her character pack that displayed her stats, nor promised she would perform at the levels she did. You received that information through third party means, and not an official advertisement. So what happened with the other stuff that cane in the pack? Did they change for better or worse? Did anything else get devalued?

This isn't a matter of claiming false advertising, this IS about a product being devalued.

Seriously, imagine you leased a Lexus and in the middle of the night a month later, the dealership came to your house and replaced the engine with a Mitsubishi Lancer engine. Do you really think that the car dealership would get away with that? Do you think leasing digital goods is any different?

"Geddre;15241" wrote:
Pokebreaker - you and those like you need to understand something. Agreeing to "Terms of Service" is not the 100% shutdown you seem to think it is. Let's take this to extremes... Say they decided to change every one of the current characters to have abilities equal to Teebo and Night sister Acolyte. Then they released all new characters that actually do something, but they're pay only. Do you honestly believe they'd be able to hide behind TOS? Nope. Enforceability of something like that is entirely dependent on the userbases level of acceptance.

In this case they pushed to far. Tons of people are rightfully getting their money back and EA is feeling it. I don't give a flying leap what I agree to... if I buy a super powerful game item and they change it to be garbage, I'm not bound by the TOS. This not the same as buying gems and using them on a character that ended up getting worse. This is actually taking away the item you bought and replacing it with something else that has the same name. That's not legal no matter what the TOS says.

Lol, "those like me"? What, a responsible adult with self-control and the ability to read agreements BEFORE I agree?

ToS isn't meant to be a "Shut Down". It's meant to show you lazy folks that they (Dev team) reserve the right to change the game how they see fit, and YOU agreed for them to be able to do so. You whiners getting a refund from Apple or Google store doesn't mean the changes were "illegal", it just means that your refund request met the criteria of Apple/Google's policies. Last I checked, they are not game developers, nor do they represent a legal decision. It's like refund policies that stores have, versus that of which your credit card company offers its cardholders. (I bet many of you don't even know about the extra protection services your credit card offers on purchases).

Whining and having customer service actions work in your favor is NOT the same as taking the issue to court, where agreed terms ACTUALLY matter. You say it's not legal because you feel you were wronged, NOT because it's actually illegal.

"Carolus_Rex;15250" wrote:
It doesn't matter how many times you rant the same thing over and over about the Term of Service agreement. Southpark is a comedy show, it doesn't quite work that way. Enjoy the game and be glad someone else is paying for it so you don't have to!

Obviously it doesn't work that way... It's satire and parody. You do understand what satire is, right? Or do you think the articles from The Onion are true?

Gee thanks for doing me such a huge favor, bro. Would it make a difference if I said I spent $5, or would it then come down to how MUCH one spent? If I was a big spender and still made these statements, would I then be a traitor to the "paying class gamer"? Is it impossible to argue a point on principle, even if it doesn't benefit me?

Try again.