Howdy, Stranger!

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

Taking legal action against The Secret World

11011121315

Comments

  • TorikTorik Member UncommonPosts: 2,342
    Originally posted by Ashar1972

    What I find interesting in this debate, is the use of the words Lifetime Subscription. EULA's and such aside, the question stands, is it fair and reasonable for a customer to believe they are purchasing a subscription for the lifetime of the game? Legally that is, not under the judgement of other MMO players who may have no idea of court precedents in their own jurisdiction, little alone in another's or internationally.

     

    I would put it to the MMO industry that if you are going to use such language then you are fortunate that you don't appear more often before legal instruments of associated jurisdictions when you do not fulfil your implied offer, which was for the life of the game.

     

    To give an example, in Australia, a telecommunications company offered "Unlimited" broadband for $x, but when you read the fine-print there were indeed limitations. The courts weren't so much interested in "didn't you read the TOS or EULA [insert insult at OP]" but instead about this language being deceptive and misleading. I know this is not the only case of it's kind amongst many Western jurisdictions.

     

    I really do not see the argument here.   What kind of 'implied offer' does the term Lifetime Subscription present that Secret World has not honored?  The subscribers still get access to the game for the life of the game and get functionally the same access to future content that they had when they bought the subscription.    I just do not see any reasonable claim for false advertising. 

  • Ashar1972Ashar1972 Member UncommonPosts: 24

    Law is not [only] about what you or I think is going to win a case, it is, especially the higher you go, about answering/clarifying pertinent questions, and they can go further than the initial presumed scope, which in this case is Funcom, to the broader scope, of which I pointed out was interesting to me, of the MMO industry's language around subscriptions etc. The example I gave from Australia would be for some a trivial issue, over a silly amount of money, and indeed there were, as there are in these forums many folk who:

    a) stated it was just people trying to make money;

    b) would ruin corporate-consumer relations;

    c) was frivilous;

    d) was a waste of the legal resources allocated by the State...

     

    However the end result was a bonus for consumers, and interestingly the naysayers didn't have a lot to say when the Justice ruled the telecommunications company was actually being deceitful and misleading. As I mentioned before I am positive there are many, many cases around the Western jurisdictions, which make this position around Lifetime Subscriptions look like a valid case to be clarified.

     

    As I mentioned, my experience is one of social justice and community advocacy, and so I see the importance of seeking clarification of this issue, because it does seem to actually be an issue, and not only for the reasons the OP outlined from his/her perspective. I have read in too many forums about too many MMOs about how people feel they have wasted their money and/or time because of the lack of accurate information coming from gaming companies prior to launch. Unless someone supplies our community with a massive social enema (metaphorically speaking), we are unlikely to force the gaming companies to change their culture's shady habits. These questions boil down to questions around honesty in advertsing, maybe others too, but defaming, sledging, belittling people like the OP are not going to clarify these issues at all. Quite the cotrary, I would think they breed subservience, and mediocrity.

     

    What is particualry noxious is that in the broader community we have so many folk venting their spleens about the misleading behaviours of MMO hype etc as if truth in advertising was a fairytale, not a requirement. You can dress up the truth in adverstising as long as the core of truth is easily accessible and understandable. It is quite healthy for a society to make sure these questions are being clarified, and with some regularity. I think there is a fair case to be answered at the free run gaming companies are having at present to print money, especially those like EA who are essentially the McDonalds of the gaming world. Quality is only in their interest if it is more profitable than quantity, or at least happens without endangering profits.

     

    I have also worked closely with four judges in my time on boards of directors, and numerous lawyers. The discussions we have had about legal issues around truth in advertising is very, very interesting (to me) and not at all straight forward. Some interesting things about those discussions. Lay folk seem to operate under the presumption that the law is essentially straight forward, that all lawyers (when corruption and profits are put to the side) agree on the law, and judges all find the same things interesting. Jurisprudence, I think, says otherwise. Moreso I have had a particular legal battle, where a lawyer, friends, etc told me I couldn't win, to fall on my sword etc. I went on to defend myself, because I believe at the heart of the matter was a issue that needed the courts calrification, and I won. Our courts are there to be used, not to collect dust and cobwebs - for the public to decry cases as frivolus is funnily enough, not our call. If the OP is willing to spend the time and other resources, including risk, good on them.

     

    Then we get into the discussion about how the question is framed, what other material is brought to bear on the matter. From my experience most of us lay folk have little idea of what will be important in cases. You rightfully point out "What kind of 'implied offer' does the term Lifetime Subscription present that [Funcom] has not honored?" You may be perfectly right, partially right, somewhat right, or not right etc. Indeed the case might get a Judge that doesn't find it interesting, and does find it frivilous, whereas if they had a judge with a differing perspective, they might get a completely different outcome. We won't know until people like the OP put the time and effort in to seeking clarification on these issues. I argue we will have a better corporate-customer relationship for these issues being brought for clarification. I also argue that it is valuable to have people like the OP vent their spleens. Indeed in the end that is what it may be limited too, and that is o.k. because it is actually healthy to have controlled conflict around these issues for our community. It's the defamatory/belittling/derogatory character assassinations we have to guard against, and MMO forums are really bad for that.

  • AredylAredyl Member Posts: 22

    Here is my point-of-view on the matter:

     

    First, users purchased a box-copy of the game, knowing there will be a subscription tied to the access of the game.  Current users then paid the subscription fee for access to the game.  Some users paid in advance, receiving discounts to their subscription.  Some even paid for a one-time only fee for a "lifetime subscription."  Users also agreed to the Terms of Service as part of the agreement.  Funcom agreed to offer access to users that paid this subscription, as long as they agreed to the Terms of Service and other documents.  

     

    Since then, Funcom has decided to change their subscription fee to any new users of their service.  On top of that, Funcom has decided that anybody that has currently pre-paid for a subscription to receive extra benefits beyond access to their service. Funcom also allows any subscribing user to switch to the new plan after the agreement has been fulfilled by both parties.

     

    From one point-of-view: Funcom has not breeched their end of the agreement.  They are still providing the same services to users that have paid for a subscription.  They also provided additional benefits that were not part of the original agreement.

     

    From another point-of-view: Funcom has not provided the value of the subscription, claiming that the current value is now worth nothing.  Funcom also changed the agreement by providing other services instead of access to the system for the subscription.

     

    Here is my point-of-view: The original agreement was for access to the system for a subscription fee.  Unless you happen to get a sympathetic judge to rule that Funcom committed fraud by intentionally setting up a subscription-based model with the intention to change it later, Funcom is still providing their end of the agreement.  By requesting a refund, Funcom has the right to deny your request, although it would probably be in their best interest from a PR point of view to do so.

  • GravargGravarg Member UncommonPosts: 3,424
    google Centipad...EULA usually means the company can do whatever it wants and you have no rights hehe.
  • SiugSiug Member UncommonPosts: 1,257
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    This thread gets my vote for the most stupid posts trying to sound smart.
     

    +1

  • AtmaDarkwolfAtmaDarkwolf Member UncommonPosts: 353

    Now see, lets just pretend it worked the other way around.

     

    As example let me just mention the 'sale' screw up on steam the other day. Sleeping dogs was accedently listed at 91% off. So by YOUR thinking(Talking to OP here) they should have the right to charge each person to snatched a copy at that price for the rest of the cost?

     

    No see you bought a product at the time of sale, for the price listed. I looked over that 'deal' long ago and didn't see anywhere where it said anything to the effect of 'if we later change the service, we will cover you'

     

    Now what they have done, is make the buying of said deal STILL worthwhile, in the way of saved price in item shop, items that others do not get, etc.

     

     

    Sorry, you have no real grounds to stand on here, just a silly 'I wanna nerdrage' post.

  • HardcodedHardcoded Member UncommonPosts: 97
    Hey remember  when the class action lawsuit was filed against SOE for completely changing StarWars Galaxies, or the one when Star Trek Online went F2P, or how about Lord of the Rings online, Champions Online, EQ2, or for that matter, any game that was shut down. Nope? Thats because you are only paying for the privledge to play the game, you own exactly nothing. EULA, TOS, what ever you want to call it states that on any online game you play.
  • Ramonski7Ramonski7 Member UncommonPosts: 2,662
    Originally posted by banzai014

    As some of you may be aware, Funcom's The Secret World today shifted from a subscription only model to B2P (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/12/the-secret-world-officially-abolishes-subscriptions/). This was a completely unannounced and sudden change: the only warning given was a "prank" youtube video (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/10/the-secret-worlds-dev-video-blog-begins-end-of-days-chronicle/).

    This leaves players with existing subscription time and lifetime subscribers in the lurch. In this new model, players that purchase the box price have full access to the game in its current state. Players can then subscribe for $15/month for 1200 Funcom points ($10 in real money) that expire after 6 months needed to buy future DLC (slated to be released in monthly installments costing $5-10),  a fluff vanity item of the month, an xp booster item and a 10% discount on the item shop. Existing subscribers are being switched to this plan for the remainder of their subscription time, without a refund option. Remember that these subscribers also had to buy the game box in the beginning.

    This is not what subscribers paid for.  The deal they signed up for has been changed without their consent or prior knowledge. The terms of agreement have been pulled out from under them. Subscribers paid for access to updates ("DLC") but also access to the game itself. In the P2P model you simply could not log in if you were'nt subscribed. Now that you can get full access for free, the value of the subscription has been cheapened.

    The services subscribers get with the B2P model are worthless. $15 per month for $10 worth in limited time points, whereas a B2P player can buy DLC each month for cheaper ($5) and have exactly the same access to the game. $15 (sub per month) > $10 (in virtual Funcom monies) > $5 per month for DLC you need to keep up with other players.

    I feel that the subscription option is only there so that they don't have to refund people with existing subs and of course lifetimers. The sub has no value and is a ripoff. A sub gave players both access to new content and to the game itself. Since everyone has access to the game now for the box price, the sub has lost part of its value and so people with existing sub time should demand a refund. I would really like to know what a lawyer's legal opinion of this change would be.

    I have contacted Massively and MMORPG.com suggesting they write an article investigating the legal implications of TSW's B2P change or otherwise recommend me a lawyer specializing in this area that I could talk to. I hope this way we can get something started moving forward and clarify exactly  what legal recourse existing subscribers have. My demands are fair: I only ask that players get the option of having their extant subscription time refunded, since the subscription service has so wholly changed from what they originally intended to pay for (i.e. which in large part was paying for access to the game itself).

    Are you serious? That's like getting mad at a ball club for selling tickets at the booth and you bought season passes.

    Or getting mad because you bought Torchlight II for 20 bucks on NCSoft's website and now it's on Steam for 10 bucks.

    Or getting mad because they charged full price to get into a party early and later on start allowing people in for 1/2 off.

    image
    "Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,063

    This might even be more fun than the threats made against SOE for NGE.

    /grab popcorn

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • birdycephonbirdycephon Member UncommonPosts: 1,314
    The EULA and TOS are both legally binding contracts you obviously did not read before agreeing to.
  • cptndunselcptndunsel Member UncommonPosts: 136
    good luck with that - anyone who bought the lifetime sub without considering the potential for yet another funcom game to crap itself (ala conan) and then go f2p got what they paid for - a fail game from a vendor known to make games that go f2p.
  • TeknoBugTeknoBug Member UncommonPosts: 2,156

    Wow I was completely unaware that this game doesn't have subs anymore, before it launched I was somewhat interested in this game but more I watched gameplay videos the more interest I lost. I may try this on a rainy day.

    image
    image

  • MMOGamer71MMOGamer71 Member UncommonPosts: 1,988
    Originally posted by Teala
    See, it is for this very reason that lifetime subs are worthless.

    ^

    This

  • raistlinmraistlinm Member Posts: 673
    Without even reading any replys this isn't going to get anywhere most of these companies are very well protected form law suits by the very tos agreement you mention.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by TeknoBug
    Wow I was completely unaware that this game doesn't have subs anymore, before it launched I was somewhat interested in this game but more I watched gameplay videos the more interest I lost. I may try this on a rainy day.

    Not having sub really fits the game play for this game. It removes the feeling that you need to progress at a certain rate to get your money's worth. For me, it made the difference between a game I would not play and one that I enjoy playing.

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

  • TorkazTorkaz Member UncommonPosts: 92
    Originally posted by banzai014

    As some of you may be aware, Funcom's The Secret World today shifted from a subscription only model to B2P (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/12/the-secret-world-officially-abolishes-subscriptions/). This was a completely unannounced and sudden change: the only warning given was a "prank" youtube video (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/10/the-secret-worlds-dev-video-blog-begins-end-of-days-chronicle/).

    This leaves players with existing subscription time and lifetime subscribers in the lurch. In this new model, players that purchase the box price have full access to the game in its current state. Players can then subscribe for $15/month for 1200 Funcom points ($10 in real money) that expire after 6 months needed to buy future DLC (slated to be released in monthly installments costing $5-10),  a fluff vanity item of the month, an xp booster item and a 10% discount on the item shop. Existing subscribers are being switched to this plan for the remainder of their subscription time, without a refund option. Remember that these subscribers also had to buy the game box in the beginning.

    This is not what subscribers paid for.  The deal they signed up for has been changed without their consent or prior knowledge. The terms of agreement have been pulled out from under them. Subscribers paid for access to updates ("DLC") but also access to the game itself. In the P2P model you simply could not log in if you were'nt subscribed. Now that you can get full access for free, the value of the subscription has been cheapened.

    The services subscribers get with the B2P model are worthless. $15 per month for $10 worth in limited time points, whereas a B2P player can buy DLC each month for cheaper ($5) and have exactly the same access to the game. $15 (sub per month) > $10 (in virtual Funcom monies) > $5 per month for DLC you need to keep up with other players.

    I feel that the subscription option is only there so that they don't have to refund people with existing subs and of course lifetimers. The sub has no value and is a ripoff. A sub gave players both access to new content and to the game itself. Since everyone has access to the game now for the box price, the sub has lost part of its value and so people with existing sub time should demand a refund. I would really like to know what a lawyer's legal opinion of this change would be.

    I have contacted Massively and MMORPG.com suggesting they write an article investigating the legal implications of TSW's B2P change or otherwise recommend me a lawyer specializing in this area that I could talk to. I hope this way we can get something started moving forward and clarify exactly  what legal recourse existing subscribers have. My demands are fair: I only ask that players get the option of having their extant subscription time refunded, since the subscription service has so wholly changed from what they originally intended to pay for (i.e. which in large part was paying for access to the game itself).

    Still wasting your time with this?  Your the kind of person that would sue McDonald's for pouring hot coffee on yourself...

  • thinktank001thinktank001 Member UncommonPosts: 2,144
    Originally posted by Rocketeer

    For a lawsuit to be realistic you need to have been wronged somehow, preferably in a financial way with fraudulent intent. Double charges on CC or charges for a banned account, taking away or ceasing to deliver something you paid for without refund, causing damage to your computer/privacy by negligence(virus, trojan etc). All of these can be a basis for a lawsuit. But giving someone else something for free that you had to pay for ... its simply not against the law. 

     

    Maybe and maybe not.  

     

    IMHO, I don't see TSW selling many subscriptions if they had announced the game could be using the P2W business model in the future.  Is that deceitful? I don't know.  On the other hand, TSW was released with a cash shop so I don't find it unreasonable that consumers should have known this was a possibility in the future.     

  • evilastroevilastro Member Posts: 4,270

    Here is how it would go down in court.

    Judge: Why are you taking legal action against Funcom?

    You: Because I paid to have a lifetime access to the game and now it is B2P.

    Judge: Is the game still running?

    You: Yes.

    Judge: Can you still play it with no restrictions?

    You: Yes.

    Judge: Get the fuck out of my courtroom.

     

  • TheocritusTheocritus Member LegendaryPosts: 9,739
    Maybe next time some of you will listen when we are telling you when companies are going for a total cash grab......The amount they were asking for this game out of beta was insane yet some of you bit line and sinker.....Instead of suing the company maybe take a look in the mirror and use your head next time.
  • KellsKells Member Posts: 65

    Yeah, as a Grandmaster, I pretty blame myself for jumping in and buying the lifetime sub. I have played enough mmos to know that many games go f2p (or buy-once-to-play) if their sub sales are disappointing. I was just surprised that it happened so quickly in this case. That said, I am not unhappy with the compensation that I get from Funcom, which is $10 in Funcom points each month, enough to buy future downloadable content (DLC) and the 20% discount at the cash shop for vanity items. I also get a potion that grants me an hour of double XP for mob kills, with a 16 hour cooldown.

    I am also happy that the cashshop at TSW is for fun stuff, and not "pay-to-win" items like several other cashshops I have seen in various mmos.

    Yeah, I shouldn't have bought the Grandmaster deal, but I will live with it.

    And, no, I wouldn't seriously consider taking legal action against Funcom over this. Not sure the OP really is either, he might just be blowing off steam.

  • rwyanrwyan Member UncommonPosts: 468

    Lifer here who is completely and utterly happy with the change.

     

    I've been able to buy more outfits from the shop that I normally wouldn't otherwise buy (as I would budget additional funcom points every other month or so).

     

    There are more people to group with.

     

    I still get the content and service I was promised.

     

    Still don't understand all the drama and hysterics. 

  • KellsKells Member Posts: 65

    Another way to look at it is to crunch the numbers. I believe the GM Life Sub was $200. So, at $15 per month, you could recoup the cash value (disregard the bonus items for now) in 200/15 or approximately 13 months. So now, with $10 in Funcom points per month (which you can use to buy monthly downloadable content) PLUS the 20% discount, the GM is now worth $12 a month. This doesn't factor in the monthly fun clothing items GMs also get and the hour of daily double XP for mob kills.

    Now I bought the GM relatively early, mid-August. So I have been exempt from a monthly sub for about 4 months. That would have an approximate play value of 4 x 15 or $60. Now, to recoup your original investment, it is (200-60)/12 or approximately, 12 months for me to gain back the value of my GM lifer.

    We haven't been charged yet for the next month's update. I think the OP thought it was going to cost about $5 a month in Funcom points. Assuming that is correct and assuming that one is only interested in using Funcom points for the downloadable content and nothing else, then, from that perspective, it would take more than twice as long to recoup the cost of the Grandmaster Pack from my 12 month estimate, above. But, as I am relating my example to my situation and purchase preferences, and guessing that there might be expensive expansions down the pike worth even more Funcom points than the monthly updates, I hypothesis that sticking with the game throughout 2013 SHOULD make up for the cost of the Grandmaster Pack with play past that point being pure gravy.

    Please post corrections if I made a serious calculation error here!

    Thank you.

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,063
    Originally posted by evilastro

    Here is how it would go down in court.

    Judge: Why are you taking legal action against Funcom?

    You: Because I paid to have a lifetime access to the game and now it is B2P.

    Judge: Is the game still running?

    You: Yes.

    Judge: Can you still play it with no restrictions?

    You: Yes.

    Judge: Get the fuck out of my courtroom.

     

    Pretty much. Even Johnny Cochran couldn't win this one. 

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • Crazy_StickCrazy_Stick Member Posts: 1,059
    Originally posted by ktanner3
    Originally posted by evilastro

    Here is how it would go down in court.

    Judge: Why are you taking legal action against Funcom?

    You: Because I paid to have a lifetime access to the game and now it is B2P.

    Judge: Is the game still running?

    You: Yes.

    Judge: Can you still play it with no restrictions?

    You: Yes.

    Judge: Get the fuck out of my courtroom.

     

    Pretty much. Even Johnny Cochran couldn't win this one. 

     Man... Don't go disrespecting the Cochran.

  • PsychowPsychow Member Posts: 1,784

    I hope this story ends well.

     

    News Flash!

    "After years of vigorous litigation costing millions of dollars, banzai014 appears on the courthouse steps victoriously holding his $60 check issued to him from the 4-year lawsuit..."

This discussion has been closed.