Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Taking legal action against The Secret World

11011131516

Comments

  • AlberelAlberel LondonPosts: 1,121Member

    Generally speaking consumer protection laws trump any 3rd party agreements every time. If a company sells you something then doesn't deliver what you paid for they have broken the law regardless of any agreements they force down your throat.

    The OP has a valid point. He paid a subscription to get premium access to a service (the game) and now that premium access is no longer required despite his subscription fee covering outstanding time. Some fraction of his monthly subscription HAS been mis-sold. Yes, the new benefits of being a subscriber are quite nice but that doesn't change the fact that they are not what the OP paid for.

    Think of it like this; you pay a subscription fee for your internet access on a monthly basis, suddenly in the middle of a month just after your most recent fee was paid your ISP decided to give the internet free to everyone. That means you paid for at least a week or so that everyone else got for free... So what if your ISP offers you a concilatory anti-virus subscription for your fee instead... that isn't what you paid for!

    I don't think it's worth taking anyone to court over, but I do see the OP's point.

  • RocketeerRocketeer NachrodtPosts: 1,304Member
    Originally posted by Alberel

    Generally speaking consumer protection laws trump any 3rd party agreements every time. If a company sells you something then doesn't deliver what you paid for they have broken the law regardless of any agreements they force down your throat.

    Very true, law > contracs/agreement.

    The OP has a valid point. He paid a subscription to get premium access to a service (the game) and now that premium access is no longer required despite his subscription fee covering outstanding time. Some fraction of his monthly subscription HAS been mis-sold. Yes, the new benefits of being a subscriber are quite nice but that doesn't change the fact that they are not what the OP paid for.

    I disagree. You still need a subscription to get the kind of access the op has under his sub plan. And im not sure what you mean with "some fraction ... mis-sold." What exactly is a mis-sold? And while the new benefits may not be why the OP bought the sub, they havn't taken away any of the old benefits. The fact that some part of whats covered by a sub before is now free is not a argument. Reducing a price on a service or part of a service is a prerogative of a company, even reducing the price down to zero. There are countless examples of companies reducing the price on part of their service. 

    Think of it like this; you pay a subscription fee for your internet access on a monthly basis, suddenly in the middle of a month just after your most recent fee was paid your ISP decided to give the internet free to everyone. That means you paid for at least a week or so that everyone else got for free... So what if your ISP offers you a concilatory anti-virus subscription for your fee instead... that isn't what you paid for!

    Good example. I recently changed my interent plan from a 3mbit line for 45 bucks to a 16mbit plan for 35 bucks, i was in an old legacy plan that has been running for years and wasn't even being sold anymore. So in your example your ISP isn't offering you a concilatory anti-virus, he is fulfulling the contract exactly as you both agreed upon. If you commit yourself to a contract, wether it be 30 days or 24months, you are not entitled to any pricecuts during that time, on the other hand your provider also cannot raise your price during that time. This is the very same for anything be electrical bills, water supply, mobile plan or internet.

    I don't think it's worth taking anyone to court over, but I do see the OP's point.

    No offense intended, but sometimes i wonder how many of the people commenting in threads like this actually pay their own bills or have their own contracts running. Some notions are rather ... out there. I mean just take a look at mobile contracts. You have never seen during your 24 month lockout a newer plan coming out that included things you paid for? Like free SMS or minutes?

    Or how about the christmas giveaway in the app store of apple every year. You buy a app today, tomorrow everyone gets it free. Or Steam sales and promotional items(reviewers get electronic gadgets for free for example), all of that is illegal? Really? Because someone gets something for free you had to pay for? You think thats against the law? Which law?

  • fallenlordsfallenlords NottinghamPosts: 680Member
    Originally posted by Rocketeer
    Originally posted by fallenlords
    But customers want livetime offers. Every game i know that doesn't offers them has threads on forums constantly asking for them. Why is Fucom at a fault if they fill a demand thats already there?
    You pick a business model and go with it fair enough, it doesn't work out and you have to change... again fair enough. But you hedge your bets right from the start, that shows you as a company have no faith in the initial model you have chosen.    Getting it wrong is fair enough, covering all bases in readiness I think  shows pre-planned preparation that brings into question the selling of lifetime subscriptions or subscriptions at all.  People may want lifetime subs but they want them for subscription based games, not necessarily buy to play, free to play. If the contract/agreement changes the customers should be given more than one option. Funcom should offer any dissatisfied customer more than one option, to my mind a refund in they are not happy with the new arrangement.  But they won't because they need the money.

    Even on the eve of launch with pre-order figures staring them in their face and their CEO doing a bunk trying to sell off his shares they carried on as normal. As a business that is beholding to customers surely that would of been a time to re-evaluate things. Well no I suppose not, if you don't give a fig about your customers.

     They are still selling LTAs, LTAs are still being bought. How did they screw up past LTA customers? I wouldn't mind having a LTA with the current terms ...

    And you would have to be a fool to buy one, in my opinion, a fool to give this rather unstable company any money at all.  THQ have just gone chapter 11 I don't know if there is a Norway equivalent but if I was a customer I would find out.  The overall climate for game companies that are struggling is not good.
     
     
    The current buy to play has had a little bit of an impact on the Funcom share price, ordinarily I would say great.  But with Funcom I am not sure of their motives.  Joel has already stated the suits make the business decisions... passing the buck to my mind.  But what is their plan?  Are they fighting to keep the game going or looking to improve share price prior to takeover/sale.  This could all be a cash grab and they close shop.  Are they offering any guarantees, are they engaging the users as to the state of things.  No, Funcom have always been very secretive.  They only released the sale numbers on TSW because shareholders 'forced' them to do so.

     Making money is the job of a company, you talk as if they have closed down the game already ... The game is still running a LTAs still have the same value in that they are a one time payment equivalent to a monthly 15$ sub. The only way LTAs will be worse off than subbers will be if they close the game down soonish.

    Yes making money is the job of any company but not at the expense of your customers...well not if there is anything about them.   Key to any good business is keeping your customers happy, repeat business. They went to no effort at all really with existing lifetime subs when they changed things, they just dictated terms.   Not good business practice. Indicates that as a company you are dealing with the same old Funcom, regardless of the change in personnel.

     
     
    Can't it be both? Also "making the books look good" by increasing sales and revenue ... that sure is a evil trick, bit transparent though as you can clearly see the increased revenue.
     
    All depends according to one post they have engaged the services of people who deal with takeovers, mergers and valuations of companies.  Funcom as a company have never and will never give you any insight into their long term plans.  Company could be sold in the New Year and TSW might cease to exist.  New company has no responsibility to the old customers.  Forget the image of a struggling developer trying to keep the game going for the good of the players. I think that's a false image they like to portray.
     
    So essentially they are a company that knows their buisness? That description you gave could just aswell describe the Coca-Cola company, Intel, Apple or Exxon mobile. Its not exactly rocket science to guess that a private company is in it for the money.

    Yes they know their business to an extent, but they are treading water and have been for a considerable number of years.  All I am warning people about is forget this image people have in their heads of hard done independent developer Funcom trying to limp along with the game they love at all costs.  Look at what has been happening around the company, the morals of the people who have been in charge.  Their past history towards customers.  This is not a customer focussed business in any sense.

    I fail to see how what they are doing is shady or bad for customers. Looks like buisness as usual for me, and alot less shady than most at that(used car dealers, tabacco comapnies, rifle association etc).

    Well it depends on their plans.  If they are just looking to keep the game going fair enough. But is that their motive?  Only time will tellUs naysayers and anti Funcom lot have always got it wrong so as a customer I wouldn't worry too much.

     

  • TriMoonTriMoon AmsterdamPosts: 54Member

    Consider this a lesson for life:
    Never ever pay for things that you wont use immediately, if at all possible...
    When it comes to online games: Never pay anything period.

    Well thats all for now, 3M

  • RocketeerRocketeer NachrodtPosts: 1,304Member

    @Fallenlords

    I get what your trying to say, but i don't really think they had a choice. They are clearly driven by forces and factors largely outside of their control. Also the points you stated are teh exact reason WHY i didn't buy a LTA from them when the game launched(and im generally in favour of LTAs holding 2). 

    The way i see it noone should act surpised when a MMO goes into somekind of F2P these days, regardless of wether they sell LTAs or not. Also the recompensation for LTA customers is pretty standard these days, store point stipend + perks + free content if suboption persists.

    Also if your game is failing anyway ... any option keeping it afloat is good for the players, especially if they paid upfront. Preparing prelaunch for atleast the possibility of that is just common sense if you look at the long list of MMOs who didn't and had to suffer in the transition process because they where unprepared.

     

    The way i see it alot of complaints are basicly buyers remorse. People got tired of the game and see this change as a chance to get atleast some of their money back. Though the product you access with your LTA today isn't any less than the product you accessed with your LTA a year ago, infact its a improved product. The way i see it people are grasping at straws to morally justify getting their money back, one has to wonder how many of them are just burned out of the game anyway.

    Lesson is to not buy a LTA to a game unless you plan on playing it the next couple years. Like i said, i hold two and do not regret either even though both are to F2P titles. At the very least they allow me to play the games without artificial barriers and getting nickle and dimed for every little thing.

    Also 200-300$ are not that much if consider that you get to play that game for potentially years. And lets be honest, most P2P games gone F2P are downright horrible if you don't spent real cash. And even those awesome F2P games with no restrictions ... well somehow they have to be (planning to)making money. I rather pay upfront than getting into some bait and switch P2W scam with patch xy sometime in the future.

  • OzimandeusOzimandeus Milton KeynesPosts: 84Member Uncommon

    I always find these arguments a bit facile.

    I've purchased x2 lifetime subs in MMOs over the years, one for STO and one for TSW.

    I did so with the full knowledge that they were likely to end up F2P or B2P... I did this because I wanted the games to succeed in the face of a fickle general gamer public, who are only interested in the most 'popular' title with the highest review scores. I always value the games I play at a flat value of £1 per hour of gameplay. To that end the 300 hours I put into STO more than paid for itself. I am certain I will put that many hours into TSW as well so much so that I expect to end up paying no more than 50p per hour. (as a comparison, a movie will last on average of 2 hours, and cost apoprox £10 that £5 per hour).

    Yes, yes I here all the noises that suggest a bad ratio between my brain cells and wallet. But you know, I see games development in the MMO arena as less a business and more a creation of Art, its a genre I love and wish to be a patron of - these games are made by passionate people, not by lawyers and faceless company jocks with no heart.

    Funcom, for all their failings have two huge things in their favour when I look to 'invest' my money with them.

    a) they are a european company and the profits go back to europe - I'm a Uk citizen and want my money to help people in my own continent (sorry US guys).

    b) they are passionate about the games they make, and support them long after their shelf life has passed (AO is 11 years old and still going)

    c) they are a small and largely independant company, that doesn't have to doff its cap to the 'man' in NYC.

    I am even sorely tempted to invest in Funcom in a more direct way, and buy their shares, which took a hammering this year and as a consquence and available to buy at a HUGE cost reduction, with the advent of Legend of Conan it is very likely indeed that their profitablity will increase substantially.

    Incidenteally Funcom are NOT in financial trouble, Ragnar T0rnquist is not a Korean grind fest maker and he was not 'fired' from Funcom.

    To that end, I am not in the least bit concerned about the change of business model, I welcome it, since it will hopefully bring the company some much needed additional revenue and bring more players into the game universe that I have come to love.

     

     

     

     

    image

  • fallenlordsfallenlords NottinghamPosts: 680Member
    Originally posted by Ozimandeus

    Funcom, for all their failings have two huge things in their favour when I look to 'invest' my money with them.

    a) they are a european company and the profits go back to europe - I'm a Uk citizen and want my money to help people in my own continent (sorry US guys).

     

    Not so sure about that, they are spread all over the place and that is probably due to tax break reasons. I would applaud you at your stance ordinarily but as a UK consumer and being part of Europe I would expect a consumer to have more protection than they do have.    I would have had Trading Standards on their back before now if they had been UK resident company.  They also sort of need to make a profit for the profits to go back into Europe.  Don't know if you have read any of their financial reports but they are not donating massive amounts to the European coffers.

     

    b) they are passionate about the games they make, and support them long after their shelf life has passed (AO is 11 years old and still going)

     

    Debatable.  When you only have a limited number of products, you are going to support them for as long as they make money.   Never found Funcom to be passionate about their games. Always thought they neglected their users and due to the number of in-your-face bugs, didn't even play their own games was the feeling I got.  Certainly didn't listen to what the users would like to happen with regards to the future direction of said games.

     

    c) they are a small and largely independant company, that doesn't have to doff its cap to the 'man' in NYC.

     

    Which is why I find it strange that they treat their customers with such utter contempt.   The lifeblood of their company is the customers yet they never listen to them.  

     

    I am even sorely tempted to invest in Funcom in a more direct way, and buy their shares, which took a hammering this year and as a consquence and available to buy at a HUGE cost reduction, with the advent of Legend of Conan it is very likely indeed that their profitablity will increase substantially.

     

    Go for it, buy some shares... great time to buy. Legend of Conan, which I hope is a success, will make no difference to Funcom.   I hope they don't get involved at all to be honest, considering they supposedly had a hand in the Conan the Barbarian remake which was just total garbage.  Funcom stay away please, don't advise, don't do any artwork...basically don't have any connection at all with the new film.   If anything lets have a single player Conan game from Bethesda along the lines of Skyrim. In fact Skyrim feels more like a Conan game than Age of Conan ever did (just ignore all the Dragons).

     

    Incidenteally Funcom are NOT in financial trouble, Ragnar T0rnquist is not a Korean grind fest maker and he was not 'fired' from Funcom.

     

    Unless you are part of the company looking at the books on a regular basis you don't know what sort of state they are in overall.   Their next financial report, if they get that far, should make for interesting reading.  As for Ragnar, man has vision I respect that. But it's obvious he is distancing himself from Funcom... should the inevitable happen. If you can't see that then I wouldn't buy/sell shares as a pastime.

     

    To that end, I am not in the least bit concerned about the change of business model, I welcome it, since it will hopefully bring the company some much needed additional revenue and bring more players into the game universe that I have come to love.

     

    Fair play I just think as an independent developer in these sort of times, you need to focus on the customer.  You don't want to add to the anti-funcom brigade by dictating terms to people.  You have an agreement/contract so if you want to change it then you at least need to engage your existing customers.   That's one of the major problems with Funcom they dictate to their customers, there is really no open dialogue.  The Funcom forums are a prime example complaining posts are deleted, complaining users banned.  We don't see the true Funcom we see this image they want to portray and for the most part it's fake.
     

     

  • fallenlordsfallenlords NottinghamPosts: 680Member

    @Rocketeer

    It's all about perceived value.  The initial offering people judged it and made a call, fine no problem.  But Funcom are not now allowing people to reassess the perceived value and decide on their course of action.  They are dictating things to them, for a product that is less than a year old.  The majority perceive the value of the new offering to be fair and value for money.  Some don't, if customer satisfaction is key component of your business then you put things right.  

     

    I also don't buy this idea that any option to keep the game going at any cost is justified.  You won't have much of a game if you are alienating people that had faith in you, enough to buy a lifetime subscription, and now feel cheated.  That sort of thing just creates more people like me and that isn't good for business.
  • RocketeerRocketeer NachrodtPosts: 1,304Member
    Originally posted by fallenlords

    @Rocketeer

    It's all about perceived value.  The initial offering people judged it and made a call, fine no problem.  But Funcom are not now allowing people to reassess the perceived value and decide on their course of action.  They are dictating things to them, for a product that is less than a year old.  The majority perceive the value of the new offering to be fair and value for money.  Some don't, if customer satisfaction is key component of your business then you put things right.  
     
    They are not dictating anything to you, nothing changed for you if you have a LTA. The only ones affected are NEW players coming to the game now(like me). It isn't any different than buying a new gamerelease now for 60$ and see it in a sale 80% reduced in a year. Only difference is that you actually will get alot more as a LTA account holder(future content is included for you, its not for people who got the B2P deal).
     
    I also don't buy this idea that any option to keep the game going at any cost is justified.  You won't have much of a game if you are alienating people that had faith in you, enough to buy a lifetime subscription, and now feel cheated.  That sort of thing just creates more people like me and that isn't good for business.
     
    Tell that to the people who played Hellgate:London, APB, SWG, E&B or CoX. Its better to alienate some people than to alienate EVERYONE by saying "thats it, bye". If TSW had been a huge success things may have been different, but it wasn't and they are not.
     

     

  • PigEyePigEye campbellsville, KYPosts: 78Member
    Originally posted by Ozimandeus

    I always find these arguments a bit facile.

    I've purchased x2 lifetime subs in MMOs over the years, one for STO and one for TSW.

    I did so with the full knowledge that they were likely to end up F2P or B2P... I did this because I wanted the games to succeed in the face of a fickle general gamer public, who are only interested in the most 'popular' title with the highest review scores. I always value the games I play at a flat value of £1 per hour of gameplay. To that end the 300 hours I put into STO more than paid for itself. I am certain I will put that many hours into TSW as well so much so that I expect to end up paying no more than 50p per hour. (as a comparison, a movie will last on average of 2 hours, and cost apoprox £10 that £5 per hour).

    Yes, yes I here all the noises that suggest a bad ratio between my brain cells and wallet. But you know, I see games development in the MMO arena as less a business and more a creation of Art, its a genre I love and wish to be a patron of - these games are made by passionate people, not by lawyers and faceless company jocks with no heart.

    Funcom, for all their failings have two huge things in their favour when I look to 'invest' my money with them.

    a) they are a european company and the profits go back to europe - I'm a Uk citizen and want my money to help people in my own continent (sorry US guys).

    b) they are passionate about the games they make, and support them long after their shelf life has passed (AO is 11 years old and still going)

    c) they are a small and largely independant company, that doesn't have to doff its cap to the 'man' in NYC.

    I am even sorely tempted to invest in Funcom in a more direct way, and buy their shares, which took a hammering this year and as a consquence and available to buy at a HUGE cost reduction, with the advent of Legend of Conan it is very likely indeed that their profitablity will increase substantially.

    Incidenteally Funcom are NOT in financial trouble, Ragnar T0rnquist is not a Korean grind fest maker and he was not 'fired' from Funcom.

    To that end, I am not in the least bit concerned about the change of business model, I welcome it, since it will hopefully bring the company some much needed additional revenue and bring more players into the game universe that I have come to love.

     

     

     

     

     

    Ouch!

    At least I'm not the only one who seems to have horrible luck!

     

    *Disclaimer*

    I have never purchased a LTS for any game, but if I did, I can assure you no good would come from it =p

    PigEye McNasty
    DFOUW NA

  • RocketeerRocketeer NachrodtPosts: 1,304Member
    I have LTAs to STO and LotRO. Wasn't the best money i spent i guess, but definitly not the worst either. Also its nice coming back to the game after a year and see lots of store points in your wallet, whích you can use to buy expansions and stuff. Though i don't see me buying another LTA as long as those two still run, there are just too many games out there to play right now, if they don't have a F2P option i don't even seriously try them anymore.
  • OrtwigOrtwig Cambridge, MAPosts: 1,159Member Uncommon
  • OzimandeusOzimandeus Milton KeynesPosts: 84Member Uncommon

    Just on the financial accounts of Funcom, they publically released the third quarter results back in November:

    http://www.funcom.com/investors

    On your point about treating their customer's poorly, I can tell you that the worst service I've ever had has repeatedly been from 'EA' proper, a string of MMORPG's and other games have been canned by EA and no longer supported, Earth and Beyond to name but one - there are many others.

    On the other hand, Anarchy Online is STILL going strong having moved from one business model to another one successfully. For MMORPG's the most important 'serivce' is continuing support. But I agree in terms of 'fab customer service there is someway to go, but that is often the case in European comapnies, who do not have the same ethos of customer service that you see in Stateside companies.

    Evidence of 'passion' isn't in the business side, but in the execution of the games themselves, in TSW in isolation the creativeness by the art department oozes from every orrifice. The game dynamics and and freedom say all you need. The story telling is better than anything seen in any MMORPG I have every played, all of these 'creative' elements show the artistic bent that the company has towards gamesmaking which (for me) puts TSW on par with Guild Wars 2 or LotRO.

     

     

     

    image

  • AbangyarudoAbangyarudo Prescott Valley, AZPosts: 156Member
     
    You pick a business model and go with it fair enough, it doesn't work out and you have to change... again fair enough. But you hedge your bets right from the start, that shows you as a company have no faith in the initial model you have chosen.    Getting it wrong is fair enough, covering all bases in readiness I think  shows pre-planned preparation that brings into question the selling of lifetime subscriptions or subscriptions at all.  People may want lifetime subs but they want them for subscription based games, not necessarily buy to play, free to play. If the contract/agreement changes the customers should be given more than one option. Funcom should offer any dissatisfied customer more than one option, to my mind a refund in they are not happy with the new arrangement.  But they won't because they need the money.
    Can you show when this has been done in mmorpgs? 
     

    Even on the eve of launch with pre-order figures staring them in their face and their CEO doing a bunk trying to sell off his shares they carried on as normal. As a business that is beholding to customers surely that would of been a time to re-evaluate things. Well no I suppose not, if you don't give a fig about your customers.

    The ceo wasn't a ceo at the time he made a personal decision. I don't see how this is not giving a crap about your customers. When you're faced with the following benefits: 

    A) $10 of funcom points instead of 0 under the old subscription. 

    B) Veteran Rewards

    C) Enough points to buy dlc packs if it goes over the amount for monthly allowance they get it at the monthly allowance price. 

    D)  20% discount from the store.  

     
    The current buy to play has had a little bit of an impact on the Funcom share price, ordinarily I would say great.  But with Funcom I am not sure of their motives.  Joel has already stated the suits make the business decisions... passing the buck to my mind.  But what is their plan?  Are they fighting to keep the game going or looking to improve share price prior to takeover/sale.  This could all be a cash grab and they close shop.  Are they offering any guarantees, are they engaging the users as to the state of things.  No, Funcom have always been very secretive.  They only released the sale numbers on TSW because shareholders 'forced' them to do so.
     
    I believe if they were going to close up shop they would have. Which if you were correct about them not giving a damn would be done hastily to avoid losing money as you say they are. They haven;t which shows a clear desire to  continue the game. All games wish to be profitable so I'm not going to get into the whole is it just for the money thing. People don't work for free. 

    Yes making money is the job of any company but not at the expense of your customers...well not if there is anything about them.   Key to any good business is keeping your customers happy, repeat business. They went to no effort at all really with existing lifetime subs when they changed things, they just dictated terms.   Not good business practice. Indicates that as a company you are dealing with the same old Funcom, regardless of the change in personnel.

     

    While you're making a grandstand about it I'm guessing you have a mortgage? Which is designed by nature to cheat you out of a large amount of money by giving you enough money upfront? If not I'm sure you had one at one time. So let’s talk about cheating people out of money in the avenues that matter compared to a mortgage I'm not sure I would sweat $15 a month.  If they repo your house, car whatever is that not by nature cheating the customer? 

     

     

     

  • ShodanasShodanas PatrasPosts: 896Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by banzai014
    Originally posted by Roxtarr
    Re-read the Terms and Conditions you agreed to and you may find you have no ground to stand on.

    The EULA means nothing in Europe

    O' really??

    You may wana check again on this mate. image

  • KnyttaKnytta Corning, NYPosts: 349Member Uncommon
    Funcom is a Norwegian company that is not answerable to any EU laws, I am pretty sure that their EULA claims that any litigation should be under Norwegian law (where class action lawsuits are almost unheard of). Good luck in finding a Norwegian attorney that wants to take your claim to court.

    Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.

    He who can describe the flame does not burn.

    Petrarch


  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member

    I am amazed this conversation is still going, and people are still suggesting that there's some sort of legal case here. If the EULA is meaningful as a contract, then it protects Funcom from the lawsuit because Funcom reserves the right to change the terms of the subscription at any time. If the EULA is not meaningful as a contract, then the person bringing suit has to show material or psychological harm. There is no material or psychological harm done to lifetime subscribers.

    There is no lawsuit here. Oh sure, someone could hire a lawyer, and spend the money to try and bring Funcom to court, but that someone would be throwing their money away.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • AbangyarudoAbangyarudo Prescott Valley, AZPosts: 156Member
    what I find amazing is if I read the op right he is not a lifetime subscriber hes a regular subber that has a few months left. So all this talk about life time subscription is meaningless because the person in question does not have one.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Abangyarudo
    what I find amazing is if I read the op right he is not a lifetime subscriber hes a regular subber that has a few months left. So all this talk about life time subscription is meaningless because the person in question does not have one.

    Well, huh. That is indeed more amazing than what I was amazed at.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • ConjureOneConjureOne RigaPosts: 226Member

    wow filing a law suit because of 200$ (max? and not even DIRECT losses) is wow, WOW, I dunno how to put this xD retarded-stubbornes might be a good description of what this topic is. 

    And you dont live in zimbabwe, do you? I think its probably the only country in the world where you can pay the lawyer less tan 1000$ for a case xD

  • ConjureOneConjureOne RigaPosts: 226Member
    Originally posted by Knytta
    Funcom is a Norwegian company that is not answerable to any EU laws, I am pretty sure that their EULA claims that any litigation should be under Norwegian law (where class action lawsuits are almost unheard of). Good luck in finding a Norwegian attorney that wants to take your claim to court.

    wow, do you even have any clue what youre talking about ? xD You can get sued in norwegia from crimes in russia etc there are world legislation acts (thats what UN is there for) and many legislation acts are signed by multiple countries, so that crimes commited widely across any number of countries (like in case of MMORPGS) can be judged in any country.

    And there is always the factor of CONSUMER <-> DISTRIBUTOR legislation, where the CONSUMER (if not a company, but a person) is always protected by the consumer law and shit like EULA, even if you sign it, can be canceled by appropriate governmental institutions if major misconduct is present.

    Son, get a clue -> post.

  • fallenlordsfallenlords NottinghamPosts: 680Member
    Originally posted by Rocketeer
     
    They are not dictating anything to you, nothing changed for you if you have a LTA. The only ones affected are NEW players coming to the game now(like me). It isn't any different than buying a new gamerelease now for 60$ and see it in a sale 80% reduced in a year. Only difference is that you actually will get alot more as a LTA account holder(future content is included for you, its not for people who got the B2P deal).
    Of course they are dictating terms to you, the business model has changed.  Whether their new model is better, worse or the same is a matter of indifference.  They have dropped the monthly subscription, in doing so they have altered the contract.  At this moment in time any customer that is not happy should be given more than one option.  MMO players can be quite principled in their approaches to games, they may support a subscription but not a buy to play or free to play model.  That is their choice, but they are being given no choice with regards to this change.
     
    Tell that to the people who played Hellgate:London, APB, SWG, E&B or CoX. Its better to alienate some people than to alienate EVERYONE by saying "thats it, bye". If TSW had been a huge success things may have been different, but it wasn't and they are not.
     Well if they closed up shop people may be able to seek reimbursment through other methods. I would imagine you alienate people with regards to this and you may stil have a customer in the sense of somebody that has bought the game and given you their money.  But not in any other terms. 
     
    I know when Funcom annoyed me I just gave up on 10 months of AOC subscription there was no way I would support that game in any way.  All I am saying is why don't they offer anybody that is unhappy a refund, just to show that as a company they have changed and turned a corner.  From the sounds of it you are looking at a few people. It's never good business to alienate a customer.  There are reasons TSW didn't do well at launch and a hell of a lot of those reasons boil down to how Funcom have treated people in the past. 

     

     

  • fallenlordsfallenlords NottinghamPosts: 680Member
    Originally posted by Abangyarudo
    Can you show when this has been done in mmorpgs? 
    What does that matter, if something has been done before. 
    The ceo wasn't a ceo at the time he made a personal decision. I don't see how this is not giving a crap about your customers. When you're faced with the following benefits: 
    A) $10 of funcom points instead of 0 under the old subscription. 

    B) Veteran Rewards

    C) Enough points to buy dlc packs if it goes over the amount for monthly allowance they get it at the monthly allowance price. 

    D)  20% discount from the store. 

    Well he stepped down as CEO after seeing the pre-order numbers for TSW, even though he states that isn't true.  The guy is facing insider-trader allegations and legal action. He basically only stepped down so he could sell his shares.  This is the sort of person that was running this company.  That is like 'Red Alert' - something isn't right here.

    As for the new offers, like I say giving people a choice seems like a fair request to my mind. If they like the new deal fair enough, if they don't offer them a refund.  But they won't because they want to keep their clammy hands on what they have already got out of people.  Funcom hasn't changed it isn't even in the process of changing.  How many times you have to go through the same lesson to actually learn something I don't know.

     
    I believe if they were going to close up shop they would have. Which if you were correct about them not giving a damn would be done hastily to avoid losing money as you say they are. They haven;t which shows a clear desire to  continue the game. All games wish to be profitable so I'm not going to get into the whole is it just for the money thing. People don't work for free. 
     
    Why close up shop just prior to Xmas/New Year lots of money about at this time of year.  No they are doing things right, offer buy to play to get some more cash for this game, that they spent millions on.  Then shut up shop probably around March.  Or get bought out and drop the game as part of the restructuring, blaming the new owners.

    While you're making a grandstand about it I'm guessing you have a mortgage? Which is designed by nature to cheat you out of a large amount of money by giving you enough money upfront? If not I'm sure you had one at one time. So let’s talk about cheating people out of money in the avenues that matter compared to a mortgage I'm not sure I would sweat $15 a month.  If they repo your house, car whatever is that not by nature cheating the customer? 

    You may not be able to alter the workings of some multi-national bank by arguing the toss over bank fees or dodgy investments they make with your money.  But here you are talking about an 'independant' software developer.  The customer has more power than they think.

     

     

     

  • RocketeerRocketeer NachrodtPosts: 1,304Member
    Originally posted by fallenlords
    Originally posted by Rocketeer
     
    They are not dictating anything to you, nothing changed for you if you have a LTA. The only ones affected are NEW players coming to the game now(like me). It isn't any different than buying a new gamerelease now for 60$ and see it in a sale 80% reduced in a year. Only difference is that you actually will get alot more as a LTA account holder(future content is included for you, its not for people who got the B2P deal).
    Of course they are dictating terms to you, the business model has changed.  Whether their new model is better, worse or the same is a matter of indifference.  They have dropped the monthly subscription, in doing so they have altered the contract.  At this moment in time any customer that is not happy should be given more than one option.  MMO players can be quite principled in their approaches to games, they may support a subscription but not a buy to play or free to play model.  That is their choice, but they are being given no choice with regards to this change.
     
    So your saying a company that has any running contract can't change its businessmodel? Thats bollocks. They either honor a contract or they don't, their business model is none of your business. Thats exactly like a phone contract company introducing a prepaid model alongside their monthly plans, or even abondoning their monthly plans entirely in favor of prepaid cards. Aslong as they still provide the agreed upon service to you at the agreed upon price its none of your business. Also they DID NOT drop the monthly subscription, thats simply false.
     
    Tell that to the people who played Hellgate:London, APB, SWG, E&B or CoX. Its better to alienate some people than to alienate EVERYONE by saying "thats it, bye". If TSW had been a huge success things may have been different, but it wasn't and they are not.
     Well if they closed up shop people may be able to seek reimbursment through other methods. I would imagine you alienate people with regards to this and you may stil have a customer in the sense of somebody that has bought the game and given you their money.  But not in any other terms. 
     
    No, you won't be able to seek reimbursement because nobody closes a buisness down until it is in the reds. If they are in the reds there will be banks, investors and employees that all have a a higher claim than you waiting for their money. Once all of those have been satisfied small claims come into it, which basicly never happens because if at this point the business had any money left they wouldn't have been broke and closed down in the first place.
     
    I know when Funcom annoyed me I just gave up on 10 months of AOC subscription there was no way I would support that game in any way.  All I am saying is why don't they offer anybody that is unhappy a refund, just to show that as a company they have changed and turned a corner.  From the sounds of it you are looking at a few people. It's never good business to alienate a customer.  There are reasons TSW didn't do well at launch and a hell of a lot of those reasons boil down to how Funcom have treated people in the past. 
     
    Because they don't have the money, quite literally. When you gave them the money for your LTA or sub, they reinvested it into the game, paid employees, paid debts, got new hardware whatever. If they wanted to pay people out they had to SELL stuff, layoff devs or borrrow money. Did you expect they put the money in some savings-account they can just withdraw it from in order to make a nice impression? 

     

     

    TSW was(/is?) doing badly financially. They are running on hope and expectations right now, and i certainly believe they can pull things around. But right now, asking them for money is like trying to bleed a stone. And even if the law was on your side(which it isn't btw), that doesn't mean you will get anything if the other side simply can't provide it(talking class action here).

  • fallenlordsfallenlords NottinghamPosts: 680Member
    Originally posted by Rocketeer

    So your saying a company that has any running contract can't change its businessmodel? Thats bollocks. They either honor a contract or they don't, their business model is none of your business. Thats exactly like a phone contract company introducing a prepaid model alongside their monthly plans, or even abondoning their monthly plans entirely in favor of prepaid cards. Aslong as they still provide the agreed upon service to you at the agreed upon price its none of your business. Also they DID NOT drop the monthly subscription, thats simply false.
    Whenever money changes hands you have a legally binding contract.  The terms of that agreement are made at the start.  Regardless of what crap they put in the contract about being allowed to screw people over, that isn't normally the case.   Consumer protection allows for terms such as 'reasonable use' and 'fit for purpose''.  Anybody could argue that reasonable use of a lifetime subscription is a lot longer than six months.  Again regardless of whether or not what is now being offered is the same, similar or better.

     

    People don't just have the right to change a contract because they feel like it, it's the whole point of a contract.  It's a 'two-way' binding agreement.   Sure things can change, but then again there has to be a reasonable amount of notification.  People have to agree to the new contract.

     

    As for the monthly subscription that has been dropped, it's no longer a requirement for playing the game.
     
    No, you won't be able to seek reimbursement because nobody closes a buisness down until it is in the reds. If they are in the reds there will be banks, investors and employees that all have a a higher claim than you waiting for their money. Once all of those have been satisfied small claims come into it, which basicly never happens because if at this point the business had any money left they wouldn't have been broke and closed down in the first place.
    No I was thinking more along the lines of seeking reimbursement from credit card companies, payment protection etc.  Probably easier to do if the company goes under than if it is still around.
     
    Because they don't have the money, quite literally. When you gave them the money for your LTA or sub, they reinvested it into the game, paid employees, paid debts, got new hardware whatever. If they wanted to pay people out they had to SELL stuff, layoff devs or borrrow money. Did you expect they put the money in some savings-account they can just withdraw it from in order to make a nice impression? 
     
    From the sounds of it here, there are two or three people that are not happy with the new arrangement.  Are you seriously saying that Funcom as a company could not afford to reimburse those people?  From recent pictures of Joel in his doomsday bunker with all that lager, I would say he spent more than that on beer and axes.

    TSW was(/is?) doing badly financially. They are running on hope and expectations right now, and i certainly believe they can pull things around. But right now, asking them for money is like trying to bleed a stone. And even if the law was on your side(which it isn't btw), that doesn't mean you will get anything if the other side simply can't provide it(talking class action here).

    Funcom is always running on hope and expectations.  Potential is the word I have always used, they show massive potential but never deliver.   But I would question the whole thing, they have publicly stated they are moving out of the MMO business.  All they have in the pipeline is a Lego MMO that looks a bit doomed from the start, if the last Lego MMO is anything to judge it by.   They are looking to move into making games with a quick turnaround.  Though only have a game engine that will work on PC (knowing Funcom I doubt it will even work on next gen consoles).  PC games sales are pitiful to say the least, so that looks promising.
     
    So how much actual commitment to this game do you think they have?  Fans love to portray this attitude of a company suffering for it's art.  But these guys are looking towards an MMO'less future. They have called in people to value the company, the stuff with the ex-CEO I don't think is yet resolved, rumors of a takeover abound and their share price is still pitiful.
     
    TSW is like the Dukenukem of the MMO world, it had to be released because so much time and money had been spent on it.  Anybody with half a brain could see right from the start that it wasn't going to be a huge commercial success.  This new buy to play model is a cash grab to my mind.  I would have had more faith in Funcom as a company if they had gone free to play.  Even now they could change my opinion of them by offering any unhappy customer a refund.  But I know the money is the important thing here not the customer, always has been and always will be.  After all Joel needs to buy more lager and axes for his bunker. Probably needs the axes to protect himself against unhappy Funcom customers.

     

This discussion has been closed.