www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3221527/thread/259914#3221527 general dicussion here at MMORPG back on topic, I have two comments : 1. However, before you make the contract you must be informed in writing that you do not have the right to cancel. If you are not informed in writing prior to the contract you will be entitled to use the cooling-off period. that needs to be looked into IMO and 2. # Betting, gaming or lottery services. does not include computer games. It means money games. Let me check that out and I'll edit htis post.
betting is money games, but by all means grasp at straws, i actually hope you are the one whos right, more power to us consumers. They did inform you with that end user agreement thing, which also tells you that its a service.
Here are the exceptions, take from the text itself :
Excepted contracts
5. - (1) The following are excepted contracts, namely any contract -
(a) for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land except for a rental agreement;
(b) for the construction of a building where the contract also provides for a sale or other disposition of an interest in land on which the building is constructed, except for a rental agreement;
(c) relating to financial services, a non-exhaustive list of which is contained in Schedule 2;
(d) concluded by means of an automated vending machine or automated commercial premises;
(e) concluded with a telecommunications operator through the use of a public pay-phone;
www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3221527/thread/259914#3221527 general dicussion here at MMORPG back on topic, I have two comments : 1. However, before you make the contract you must be informed in writing that you do not have the right to cancel. If you are not informed in writing prior to the contract you will be entitled to use the cooling-off period. that needs to be looked into IMO and 2. # Betting, gaming or lottery services. does not include computer games. It means money games. Let me check that out and I'll edit htis post.
betting is money games, but by all means grasp at straws, i actually hope you are the one whos right, more power to us consumers. They did inform you with that end user agreement thing, which also tells you that its a service.
Gaming, in this sense is money game for sure. 100%
They do not intend this phrase to cover MMORPGs or computer games.
However, there is a law somewhere which prevents you from returning a "computer software" if the seal has been broken.
This is probably to prevent people from buying them, copying them, then returning them.
Now the questions are :
- would this apply if the game was 100% downloaded from the internet?
- would it apply since we are not talking of an actual game, but in fact, a subscription? (the game already is on the hard drive and what the consumer is actually purchasing is the right to use the software, which is entirely different).
Intuitevily, I would defend the case that a user who already has bought the game and is only purchasing a subscription is covered by the The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
Here are the exceptions, take from the text itself :
Excepted contracts
5. - (1) The following are excepted contracts, namely any contract - (a) for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land except for a rental agreement; (b) for the construction of a building where the contract also provides for a sale or other disposition of an interest in land on which the building is constructed, except for a rental agreement; (c) relating to financial services, a non-exhaustive list of which is contained in Schedule 2; (d) concluded by means of an automated vending machine or automated commercial premises; (e) concluded with a telecommunications operator through the use of a public pay-phone; (f) concluded at an auction. www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm
does exclude games as we know them, they speak of gaming as financial services.
i'm rapidly losing interest but where does it state that? This list consists of excepted contracts, whereas the other one with the gaming is contracts not excepted but where you dont have the right to cancel.
Also can you name a gaming service which is not betting and lottery? i'm trying to pinpoint why they put the word gaming there. mmo's are financial services if i'm to follow dictionary definition.
First, Sirpaco is right. There is no direct indicator that under games it is meant computer games, speccialy since the whole section 7 is about "gambling".
Second, SirPaco is wrong. No court will buy quoting the law above, since it is clearly stated that "# Audio or video recordings or software which has had its seal broken and has been opened." This is the section that applies to MMO games as well. Sure, the person who wrote this probably never heard of MMO games, but I am 100% that every court would treat the case under this paragraph.
Seal broken and has been opened. Lets think about something similiar here and that might help us draw a conclusion. What about gaming cards? Here the case becomes clearer - if I enter the numbers written on game card no company will reimburse my purchase. In case of online ordering that "seal" is simply broken when computer generates your access. I think that would be how EU court would reject your case (speccialy since you would need to extra educate the judge in MMO gamming)
Why? Because no court will be prepared to take under extra consideration MMO gamming. This simply means it would be treated as every other online game purchase. You downloaded the game? Ok you are fucked, case closed ...
Here are the exceptions, take from the text itself :
Excepted contracts
5. - (1) The following are excepted contracts, namely any contract - (a) for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land except for a rental agreement; (b) for the construction of a building where the contract also provides for a sale or other disposition of an interest in land on which the building is constructed, except for a rental agreement; (c) relating to financial services, a non-exhaustive list of which is contained in Schedule 2; (d) concluded by means of an automated vending machine or automated commercial premises; (e) concluded with a telecommunications operator through the use of a public pay-phone; (f) concluded at an auction. www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm
does exclude games as we know them, they speak of gaming as financial services.
i'm rapidly losing interest but where does it state that? This list consists of excepted contracts, whereas the other one with the gaming is contracts not excepted but where you dont have the right to cancel.
Also can you name a gaming service which is not betting and lottery? i'm trying to pinpoint why they put the word gaming there. mmo's are financial services if i'm to follow dictionary definition.
If you are losing interest, don't bother lol
Whoever said you had to force yourself to post?
In any case, to answer your questions :
googling "betting, gaming and lottery" ALWAYS brings out EXCLUSIVELY gambling games. It's been a long time since I left university and I don't have access to literature etc, but I am confident that by gaming, they did NOT mean MMORPGs and other software based games. Especially as the basis for the law was written in the 70s (before WoW )
However, to answer your question from a different angle (U.S. definition) :
Gaming is the playing of games for stakes. Gaming is regulated under federal and state laws. Interstate gaming laws vary by state. While casino gaming has been legal in Nevada for more than seven decades and in Atlantic City, N.J., for more than a quarter century, it was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that other jurisdictions across the country began to introduce commercial casino gaming.
Gaming activities include casinos, racetracks, lotteries, and other forms. States that permit gaming often have a commission established to oversee the regulation of the industry, such as licensing of those employed in the gaming industry. Gaming has a significant impact on state revenues and there have been negative, as well as positive, effects of casino gaming on life in the area. Increased bankruptcy filing, increased crime, and gambling addiction are among the adverse effects.
The act or practice of gambling; an agreement between two or more individuals to play collectively at a game of chance for a stake or wager, which will become the property of the winner and to which all involved make a contribution.
the law about returning opened software is (I think) a seperate one, though I will dig a little deeper. I distincly remember this dicussion taking place with a sales man selling software in a shop. I also remember reading it while reading up on this topic, but could not find the exact place "in the law" where it is written.
I hope this answers your question
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
First, Sirpaco is right. There is no direct indicator that under games it is meant computer games, speccialy since the whole section 7 is about "gambling". Second, SirPaco is wrong. No court will buy quoting the law above, since it is clearly stated that "# Audio or video recordings or software which has had its seal broken and has been opened." This is the section that applies to MMO games as well. Sure, the person who wrote this probably never heard of MMO games, but I am 100% that every court would treat the case under this paragraph.
Seal broken and has been opened. Lets think about something similiar here and that might help us draw a conclusion. What about gaming cards? Here the case becomes clearer - if I enter the numbers written on game card no company will reimburse my purchase. In case of online ordering that "seal" is simply broken when computer generates your access. I think that would be how EU court would reject your case (speccialy since you would need to extra educate the judge in MMO gamming)
Nihce god knows I love discussing and debating things with you ^^
1. yes I am right, see post above
2. I am still right check what I write here below (which I already wrote in a previous post)
- would this apply if the game was 100% downloaded from the internet? Not sure, but probably. Probably as long as you are acquiring the software in one way or another, you can be considered to have "borken or opened the seal". (so yes you are correct)
- would it apply since we are not talking of an actual game, but in fact, a subscription? (the game already is on the hard drive and what the consumer is actually purchasing is the right to use the software, which is entirely different).
Intuitevily, I would defend the case that a user who already has bought the game and is only purchasing a subscription is covered by the The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000
---> because the actual idea behind "opening a seal" is to protect the copyright of the software from pirating. Concerning subscriptions, this is not an issue.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
The problem with the laws today is something very old- they tend to be universal and that is why you would get burned on the court. The judge would simply use the above stated paragraph and apply it to "a customer has bought and USED the game key" ... simple conclusion: Customer has violated the above state paragraph and company is therefore not allegible to reimburse him.
---> because the actual idea behind "opening a seal" is to protect the copyright of the software from pirating. Concerning subscriptions, this is not an issue.
Yeah, it is ... but no judge will take a case of 35 euros serious enough to actually study the difference between the above stated paragraph and MMO functionality. This would not be the case with big court room, flashy lawyers and jury as you see on tv. Keep that in mind ...
The problem with the laws today is something very old- they tend to be universal and that is why you would get burned on the court. The judge would simply use the above stated paragraph and apply it to "a customer has bought and USED the game key" ... simple conclusion: Customer has violated the above state paragraph and company is therefore not allegible to reimburse him. ---> because the actual idea behind "opening a seal" is to protect the copyright of the software from pirating. Concerning subscriptions, this is not an issue.
Yeah, it is ... but no judge will take a case of 35 euros serious enough to actually study the difference between the above stated paragraph and MMO functionality. This would not be the case with big court room, flashy lawyers and jury as you see on tv. Keep that in mind ...
of course However, if this case seemed to appear quite a few examples with the same company, then it might be worth making a claim out of principle.
Also, you can make a claim without having to go to court with all the flashy lawyers and tb jury
Do you know that in the U.S a woman got awarded millions of dollars because the cofee in McDonalds was too hot and she burnt herself when she spilled it?
You can make a claim about anything, as long as the company is breaking the law.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
If you are losing interest, don't bother lol Whoever said you had to force yourself to post?
Lost interest because in the end a lawyer will come up say things i dont understand ending with "you are wrong". That wall of text in the link you gave was hinting at that.
and It would be rude to not answer.
Aside from that thx for the answer, didnt think of "gaming" that way actually.
I still think they have themselves covered on this subject though, else RM traders would have abused it long ago.
Does not really matter who is right by the letter of the law here.
Excluding that, Funcom is, yet again, wrong in so many ways it is scary.
Ask any company, well not funcom obviously, but ANY other company what they believe is the most important thing for their business and I am sure they will all answer with a variation of:
Customer loyalty!
Most customers are loyal to their brand, whatever it might be, washing powder, toothpaste, electronics, cars, you name it.
All consumer product companies knows this, ( with some exceptions, see above ).
They also know that once lost, it is costly and time consuming to get that consumer back.
Companies really HATE consumers who do not complain and just leaves, they really rreally want the chance to bend over backwards and try to make things right.
I am one of them customers who rarely bring things back, or complain, I just never buy that brand again, or go to that store.
Rest assured that I am a MUCH more hated customer type then the person who goes into the store raving like a lunatic.
So, for a company like Funcom, who is bleeding customers, and are as of now working REALLY hard to get old players back, ( I have had both an AO and AOC welcome back re-try mail in the last weeks ), to behave like this seems incredible.
And utterly stupid, to be honest.
A company who would take every customer complaint to the legal office, hide behind the "fine print" of evey deal just is not going to last.
Allthough be it, MMO's are different, or rather us MMO customers are different, there does not seem to be an end to the abuse we will take and every post like the OP is always met with "well you did not read the fine print, you are a moron" replies.
And if that were true, morons do not have consumer rights?
This consumer behavior baffles me more then anything.
Unless of course Funcom knows for certain they are dead, then this is the right thing to do, take every dollar you can and run.
Perhaps closer to the truth then we know, they might just yet pull an AC2 on us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is this, the money is refundable whether they want it to be or not, If you paid with VISA, whether you signed a contract or not. VISA handled the transaction and they will refund you the money if you have not received the goods or services, even a pre-arranged date in the future to get them you are in essence canceling your order, and you cannot be billed for goods or services which you did not receive and could not have, given that they are to be delivered to you in the future.
They can't/won't make a profit trying this up in court so you guys are way off balance, even if they stood correct, even paying a lawyer for an hour of work filing a claim in court isnt going to net them the value for a 3 month sub that it would cost to employ a lawyer. They probably don't even have that option because they don't have a legal department anymore (downsizing).
If you went with VISA or Mastercard tell them what happened, tell them Funcom is trying to take your money without providing you fair resolution of the problem. If they haven't provided goods or services, only a fool would simply agree because the company says you can't have a refund. Legal action simply isn't necessary or valuable to either party and Funcom certainly can't afford ot pursue it. VISA will stand with the consumer every time because they get their bread and butter handling transactions and you can't tell me they don't have a file on Funcom because they sure as hell do by now.
The bottom line is this, the money is refundable whether they want it to be or not, If you paid with VISA, whether you signed a contract or not. VISA handled the transaction and they will refund you the money if you have not received the goods or services, even a pre-arranged date in the future to get them you are in essence canceling your order, and you cannot be billed for goods or services which you did not receive and could not have, given that they are to be delivered to you in the future. They can't/won't make a profit trying this up in court so you guys are way off balance, even if they stood correct, even paying a lawyer for an hour of work filing a claim in court isnt going to net them the value for a 3 month sub that it would cost to employ a lawyer. They probably don't even have that option because they don't have a legal department anymore (downsizing). If you went with VISA or Mastercard tell them what happened, tell them Funcom is trying to take your money without providing you fair resolution of the problem. If they haven't provided goods or services, only a fool would simply agree because the company says you can't have a refund. Legal action simply isn't necessary or valuable to either party and Funcom certainly can't afford ot pursue it. VISA will stand with the consumer every time because they get their bread and butter handling transactions and you can't tell me they don't have a file on Funcom because they sure as hell do by now.
You have absolutely no idea how credit card companies work. If you have ever had your identity stolen, you will know CC companies will rake you over the coals, as well as force you to cover out of pocket fairly substantial amounts of money, and this in the case of ACTUAL fraud. This is not anywhere close to being fraud, nor the fault of Funcom, and the CC company may even blacklist you if you try to do anything near what LB is telling you to to here. Reporting a fraudulent claim or disputing an undisputable charge can bring a shitstorm of unprecedented magnitude your way for many years to come. Let this be a fair warning.
Funcom cannot know if you are an honest paying subscriber or a RMT scammer/ID theif trying to pull one off. The thread OP himself made an error of not being cautious in this case, and Funcom is not to blame. This is no "trick" pulled by Funcom, just a buyer which has done something clueless and must bear the blame even though it is annoying.
My suggestion: Try contacting FC-Famine or AmazingAvery and plead your case and convince them you are not trying to scam the company. Whatever you do, DON'T call your CC company - and take a lesson in reading more carefully before accepting any charge to your card in the future.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
I think the outcome is unfortunate for the OP but any subscription based service caries essentially the same terms and conditions, obligations and stipulations. These can be verbal agreements if sold over the phone or in this case an internet order. Same principle applies. An order was made, at which time both parties entered an agreement.
Best lesson to learn is the read the small print. If you are on a contracted service then there will be terms and conditions and in this industry that often means no refunds.
If you order a TV PPV (pay per view) package over 4 months say maybe for hockey or NFL and pay up front you won't get your money back even if you have not watched half the season say.
It is the way things are. At least there are no cancellation fees!
In this case I honestly feel that the wording in "extend" was clearly written and the onus is on the customer to understand what any deals are and encompass.
In this case I honestly feel that the wording in "extend" was clearly written and the onus is on the customer to understand what any deals are and encompass.
There were two main points from the discussion that took place in this thread (which you probably did not read because it is long but np I will conclude it for you) are
- that since the customer was purchasing an extension to a subscription which has yet to take effect since he still has 1 month game time before that subscribtion starts, there is a VERY strong case for him to get his money back. (in many cases the cooling off period does not require a valid reason for canceling, there is NO ONUS ON THE CUSTOMER AT ALL)
- that in the worst case scenario, even if Funcom were not legally obliged to refund the money, common sense, good business practice and reasonable customer oriented policy (which is crucial in a MMORPG since customers NEED to come back) should have pushed those fools to refund the money.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
Small correction my existing 3 month cycle started Oct 29. The extention was "bought" on Nov 17. Hadn't even gotton into the first month of play, have maybe 5-6 hours played total.
In this case I honestly feel that the wording in "extend" was clearly written and the onus is on the customer to understand what any deals are and encompass.
There were two main points from the discussion that took place in this thread (which you probably did not read because it is long but np I will conclude it for you) are
- that since the customer was purchasing an extension to a subscription which has yet to take effect since he still has 1 month game time before that subscribtion starts, there is a VERY strong case for him to get his money back. (in many cases the cooling off period does not require a valid reason for canceling, there is NO ONUS ON THE CUSTOMER AT ALL)
- that in the worst case scenario, even if Funcom were not legally obliged to refund the money, common sense, good business practice and reasonable customer oriented policy (which is crucial in a MMORPG since customers NEED to come back) should have pushed those fools to refund the money.
In this case I honestly feel that the wording in "extend" was clearly written and the onus is on the customer to understand what any deals are and encompass.
There were two main points from the discussion that took place in this thread (which you probably did not read because it is long but np I will conclude it for you) are
- that since the customer was purchasing an extension to a subscription which has yet to take effect since he still has 1 month game time before that subscribtion starts, there is a VERY strong case for him to get his money back. (in many cases the cooling off period does not require a valid reason for canceling, there is NO ONUS ON THE CUSTOMER AT ALL)
- that in the worst case scenario, even if Funcom were not legally obliged to refund the money, common sense, good business practice and reasonable customer oriented policy (which is crucial in a MMORPG since customers NEED to come back) should have pushed those fools to refund the money.
I told you before. There is no case.
lol you told me only that it would not be worth the 35 Euros to go to court
There IS a case. Whether it is worth getting a lawyer etc and how to go about processing a claim is another debate.
Also, read the second paragraph (I'll even post it for you again) :
- that in the worst case scenario, even if Funcom were not legally obliged to refund the money, common sense, good business practice and reasonable customer oriented policy (which is crucial in a MMORPG since customers NEED to come back) should have pushed those fools to refund the money.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
b. a set of facts giving rise to a legal claim, or to a defense to a legal claim.
So, in legal terms -"to have a case" means to have a cause of a law suit that is good enough to be accepted as such in the court room. In your case (our case) this is not the case - any judge would simply put the case under paragraph I cited before. Your case would never get to court btw - the claim is 2 weak. At least not on the EU court at least
b. a set of facts giving rise to a legal claim, or to a defense to a legal claim.
So, in legal terms -"to have a case" means to have a cause of a law suit that is good enough to be accepted as such in the court room. In your case (our case) this is not the case - any judge would simply put the case under paragraph I cited before. Your case would never get to court btw - the claim is 2 weak. At least not on the EU court at least
no, when someone says "there is a case for ..." it means the position is defendable.
It comes from the legal term (and still holds for legal domain btw) but is used commonly in english. A teacher might say to a student who makes up an excuse for not doing his homework that he has no case.
Now, in our case, it is the case
The point I would like you to understand is that if any part of any law is broken, there is a case, no matter how small the prejudice.
If I want to sue my company because I scraped my knee by slipping on the leaves in the parking lot and falling (when it is their responsability to make sure there are no dead leaves on teh floor) I can.
I have studied law and you would not imagine the number of crazy "cases" taht we study.
However, that is besides the point because he's not thinking of puting a claim is he?
There are two points. The first one is that if legal experts were to debate this issue, they would most likely favour the customer (for the reasons raised in this thread). Even more important is the point that if that was not true, Funcom could have and should have refunded that money ANYWAY.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
Dude, if you read the law they wouldn't - it is everything in the paragraph I quoted. He "broke the seal" and he can go "fuck himself" - there is no Case (writting in capitals might help you understand my standing)- nothing is wrong here by the letter of law. Only the interpretation of that law might offer us something (but than again - if we are in subjective interpretations than even from the propostrous claim that gaming = computer gaming makes the case). And I am not a newb in law either.
Dude, if you read the law they wouldn't - it is everything in the paragraph I quoted. He "broke the seal" and he can go "fuck himself" - there is no Case (writting in capitals might help you understand my standing)- nothing is wrong here by the letter of law. Only the interpretation of that law might offer us something (but than again - if we are in subjective interpretations than even from the propostrous claim that gaming = computer gaming makes the case). And I am not a newb in law either.
he did not "break the seal" since that statement applies to a software.
look let me be clear
he did not purchase a software or any type of game
He purchased a "subscription" (or game TIME) which is to take effect in some months even. So, the "broken seal" point does not apply.
P.S. it is clear beyond doubt that gaming meant gambline, but that is completely besides the point.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
First off, subscription fees are non-refundable. They always have been. They (probably) always will be. Says clearly in the TOS you clicked "I Agree" to login that the fees are not refundable. So trying to get your fee back was pointless.
Second, when I took advantage of the new subscription plan it didn't bill me til my current cycle ended. I did the the helm right away, though the extra vet tokens didn't show up til my cycle began again.
Unless your cycle ended at the time of the offer how would you even know? You either had no plan and got billed when you selected one or you had time left but so little that it fell within a couple day period?
Don't see how the system would act differently for different people. Check your payment history, it will tell you when you were billed and I was billed the moment I extended despite having months left on my current cycle.
Comments
betting is money games, but by all means grasp at straws, i actually hope you are the one whos right, more power to us consumers. They did inform you with that end user agreement thing, which also tells you that its a service.
I need more vespene gas.
Here are the exceptions, take from the text itself :
Excepted contracts
5. - (1) The following are excepted contracts, namely any contract -
(a) for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land except for a rental agreement;
(b) for the construction of a building where the contract also provides for a sale or other disposition of an interest in land on which the building is constructed, except for a rental agreement;
(c) relating to financial services, a non-exhaustive list of which is contained in Schedule 2;
(d) concluded by means of an automated vending machine or automated commercial premises;
(e) concluded with a telecommunications operator through the use of a public pay-phone;
(f) concluded at an auction.
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm
does exclude games as we know them, they speak of gaming as financial services.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
betting is money games, but by all means grasp at straws, i actually hope you are the one whos right, more power to us consumers. They did inform you with that end user agreement thing, which also tells you that its a service.
Gaming, in this sense is money game for sure. 100%
They do not intend this phrase to cover MMORPGs or computer games.
However, there is a law somewhere which prevents you from returning a "computer software" if the seal has been broken.
This is probably to prevent people from buying them, copying them, then returning them.
Now the questions are :
- would this apply if the game was 100% downloaded from the internet?
- would it apply since we are not talking of an actual game, but in fact, a subscription? (the game already is on the hard drive and what the consumer is actually purchasing is the right to use the software, which is entirely different).
Intuitevily, I would defend the case that a user who already has bought the game and is only purchasing a subscription is covered by the The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
i'm rapidly losing interest but where does it state that? This list consists of excepted contracts, whereas the other one with the gaming is contracts not excepted but where you dont have the right to cancel.
Also can you name a gaming service which is not betting and lottery? i'm trying to pinpoint why they put the word gaming there. mmo's are financial services if i'm to follow dictionary definition.
I need more vespene gas.
First, Sirpaco is right. There is no direct indicator that under games it is meant computer games, speccialy since the whole section 7 is about "gambling".
Second, SirPaco is wrong. No court will buy quoting the law above, since it is clearly stated that "# Audio or video recordings or software which has had its seal broken and has been opened." This is the section that applies to MMO games as well. Sure, the person who wrote this probably never heard of MMO games, but I am 100% that every court would treat the case under this paragraph.
Seal broken and has been opened. Lets think about something similiar here and that might help us draw a conclusion. What about gaming cards? Here the case becomes clearer - if I enter the numbers written on game card no company will reimburse my purchase. In case of online ordering that "seal" is simply broken when computer generates your access. I think that would be how EU court would reject your case (speccialy since you would need to extra educate the judge in MMO gamming)
Why? Because no court will be prepared to take under extra consideration MMO gamming. This simply means it would be treated as every other online game purchase. You downloaded the game? Ok you are fucked, case closed ...
i'm rapidly losing interest but where does it state that? This list consists of excepted contracts, whereas the other one with the gaming is contracts not excepted but where you dont have the right to cancel.
Also can you name a gaming service which is not betting and lottery? i'm trying to pinpoint why they put the word gaming there. mmo's are financial services if i'm to follow dictionary definition.
If you are losing interest, don't bother lol
Whoever said you had to force yourself to post?
In any case, to answer your questions :
googling "betting, gaming and lottery" ALWAYS brings out EXCLUSIVELY gambling games. It's been a long time since I left university and I don't have access to literature etc, but I am confident that by gaming, they did NOT mean MMORPGs and other software based games. Especially as the basis for the law was written in the 70s (before WoW
)
However, to answer your question from a different angle (U.S. definition) :
Gaming is the playing of games for stakes. Gaming is regulated under federal and state laws. Interstate gaming laws vary by state. While casino gaming has been legal in Nevada for more than seven decades and in Atlantic City, N.J., for more than a quarter century, it was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that other jurisdictions across the country began to introduce commercial casino gaming.
Gaming activities include casinos, racetracks, lotteries, and other forms. States that permit gaming often have a commission established to oversee the regulation of the industry, such as licensing of those employed in the gaming industry. Gaming has a significant impact on state revenues and there have been negative, as well as positive, effects of casino gaming on life in the area. Increased bankruptcy filing, increased crime, and gambling addiction are among the adverse effects.
definitions.uslegal.com/g/gaming/
this is confirmed in the following website
The act or practice of gambling; an agreement between two or more individuals to play collectively at a game of chance for a stake or wager, which will become the property of the winner and to which all involved make a contribution.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gaming
the law about returning opened software is (I think) a seperate one, though I will dig a little deeper. I distincly remember this dicussion taking place with a sales man selling software in a shop. I also remember reading it while reading up on this topic, but could not find the exact place "in the law" where it is written.
I hope this answers your question
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
Nihce god knows I love discussing and debating things with you ^^
1. yes I am right, see post above
2. I am still right check what I write here below (which I already wrote in a previous post)
- would this apply if the game was 100% downloaded from the internet? Not sure, but probably. Probably as long as you are acquiring the software in one way or another, you can be considered to have "borken or opened the seal". (so yes you are correct)
- would it apply since we are not talking of an actual game, but in fact, a subscription? (the game already is on the hard drive and what the consumer is actually purchasing is the right to use the software, which is entirely different).
Intuitevily, I would defend the case that a user who already has bought the game and is only purchasing a subscription is covered by the The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000
---> because the actual idea behind "opening a seal" is to protect the copyright of the software from pirating. Concerning subscriptions, this is not an issue.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
The problem with the laws today is something very old- they tend to be universal and that is why you would get burned on the court. The judge would simply use the above stated paragraph and apply it to "a customer has bought and USED the game key" ... simple conclusion: Customer has violated the above state paragraph and company is therefore not allegible to reimburse him.
---> because the actual idea behind "opening a seal" is to protect the copyright of the software from pirating. Concerning subscriptions, this is not an issue.
...
Yeah, it is ... but no judge will take a case of 35 euros serious enough to actually study the difference between the above stated paragraph and MMO functionality. This would not be the case with big court room, flashy lawyers and jury as you see on tv. Keep that in mind
of course
However, if this case seemed to appear quite a few examples with the same company, then it might be worth making a claim out of principle.
Also, you can make a claim without having to go to court with all the flashy lawyers and tb jury
Do you know that in the U.S a woman got awarded millions of dollars because the cofee in McDonalds was too hot and she burnt herself when she spilled it?
You can make a claim about anything, as long as the company is breaking the law.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
Lost interest because in the end a lawyer will come up say things i dont understand ending with "you are wrong". That wall of text in the link you gave was hinting at that.
and It would be rude to not answer.
Aside from that thx for the answer, didnt think of "gaming" that way actually.
I still think they have themselves covered on this subject though, else RM traders would have abused it long ago.
I need more vespene gas.
Ok..so you finaly stop playing the worst mmo ever made...made by the worst company ever...nice...
Does not really matter who is right by the letter of the law here.
Excluding that, Funcom is, yet again, wrong in so many ways it is scary.
Ask any company, well not funcom obviously, but ANY other company what they believe is the most important thing for their business and I am sure they will all answer with a variation of:
Customer loyalty!
Most customers are loyal to their brand, whatever it might be, washing powder, toothpaste, electronics, cars, you name it.
All consumer product companies knows this, ( with some exceptions, see above ).
They also know that once lost, it is costly and time consuming to get that consumer back.
Companies really HATE consumers who do not complain and just leaves, they really rreally want the chance to bend over backwards and try to make things right.
I am one of them customers who rarely bring things back, or complain, I just never buy that brand again, or go to that store.
Rest assured that I am a MUCH more hated customer type then the person who goes into the store raving like a lunatic.
So, for a company like Funcom, who is bleeding customers, and are as of now working REALLY hard to get old players back, ( I have had both an AO and AOC welcome back re-try mail in the last weeks ), to behave like this seems incredible.
And utterly stupid, to be honest.
A company who would take every customer complaint to the legal office, hide behind the "fine print" of evey deal just is not going to last.
Allthough be it, MMO's are different, or rather us MMO customers are different, there does not seem to be an end to the abuse we will take and every post like the OP is always met with "well you did not read the fine print, you are a moron" replies.
And if that were true, morons do not have consumer rights?
This consumer behavior baffles me more then anything.
Unless of course Funcom knows for certain they are dead, then this is the right thing to do, take every dollar you can and run.
Perhaps closer to the truth then we know, they might just yet pull an AC2 on us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is this, the money is refundable whether they want it to be or not, If you paid with VISA, whether you signed a contract or not. VISA handled the transaction and they will refund you the money if you have not received the goods or services, even a pre-arranged date in the future to get them you are in essence canceling your order, and you cannot be billed for goods or services which you did not receive and could not have, given that they are to be delivered to you in the future.
They can't/won't make a profit trying this up in court so you guys are way off balance, even if they stood correct, even paying a lawyer for an hour of work filing a claim in court isnt going to net them the value for a 3 month sub that it would cost to employ a lawyer. They probably don't even have that option because they don't have a legal department anymore (downsizing).
If you went with VISA or Mastercard tell them what happened, tell them Funcom is trying to take your money without providing you fair resolution of the problem. If they haven't provided goods or services, only a fool would simply agree because the company says you can't have a refund. Legal action simply isn't necessary or valuable to either party and Funcom certainly can't afford ot pursue it. VISA will stand with the consumer every time because they get their bread and butter handling transactions and you can't tell me they don't have a file on Funcom because they sure as hell do by now.
You have absolutely no idea how credit card companies work. If you have ever had your identity stolen, you will know CC companies will rake you over the coals, as well as force you to cover out of pocket fairly substantial amounts of money, and this in the case of ACTUAL fraud. This is not anywhere close to being fraud, nor the fault of Funcom, and the CC company may even blacklist you if you try to do anything near what LB is telling you to to here. Reporting a fraudulent claim or disputing an undisputable charge can bring a shitstorm of unprecedented magnitude your way for many years to come. Let this be a fair warning.
Funcom cannot know if you are an honest paying subscriber or a RMT scammer/ID theif trying to pull one off. The thread OP himself made an error of not being cautious in this case, and Funcom is not to blame. This is no "trick" pulled by Funcom, just a buyer which has done something clueless and must bear the blame even though it is annoying.
My suggestion: Try contacting FC-Famine or AmazingAvery and plead your case and convince them you are not trying to scam the company. Whatever you do, DON'T call your CC company - and take a lesson in reading more carefully before accepting any charge to your card in the future.
I think the outcome is unfortunate for the OP but any subscription based service caries essentially the same terms and conditions, obligations and stipulations. These can be verbal agreements if sold over the phone or in this case an internet order. Same principle applies. An order was made, at which time both parties entered an agreement.
Best lesson to learn is the read the small print. If you are on a contracted service then there will be terms and conditions and in this industry that often means no refunds.
If you order a TV PPV (pay per view) package over 4 months say maybe for hockey or NFL and pay up front you won't get your money back even if you have not watched half the season say.
It is the way things are. At least there are no cancellation fees!
In this case I honestly feel that the wording in "extend" was clearly written and the onus is on the customer to understand what any deals are and encompass.
There were two main points from the discussion that took place in this thread (which you probably did not read because it is long but np I will conclude it for you) are
- that since the customer was purchasing an extension to a subscription which has yet to take effect since he still has 1 month game time before that subscribtion starts, there is a VERY strong case for him to get his money back. (in many cases the cooling off period does not require a valid reason for canceling, there is NO ONUS ON THE CUSTOMER AT ALL)
- that in the worst case scenario, even if Funcom were not legally obliged to refund the money, common sense, good business practice and reasonable customer oriented policy (which is crucial in a MMORPG since customers NEED to come back) should have pushed those fools to refund the money.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
Small correction my existing 3 month cycle started Oct 29. The extention was "bought" on Nov 17. Hadn't even gotton into the first month of play, have maybe 5-6 hours played total.
There were two main points from the discussion that took place in this thread (which you probably did not read because it is long but np I will conclude it for you) are
- that since the customer was purchasing an extension to a subscription which has yet to take effect since he still has 1 month game time before that subscribtion starts, there is a VERY strong case for him to get his money back. (in many cases the cooling off period does not require a valid reason for canceling, there is NO ONUS ON THE CUSTOMER AT ALL)
- that in the worst case scenario, even if Funcom were not legally obliged to refund the money, common sense, good business practice and reasonable customer oriented policy (which is crucial in a MMORPG since customers NEED to come back) should have pushed those fools to refund the money.
I told you before. There is no case.
There were two main points from the discussion that took place in this thread (which you probably did not read because it is long but np I will conclude it for you) are
- that since the customer was purchasing an extension to a subscription which has yet to take effect since he still has 1 month game time before that subscribtion starts, there is a VERY strong case for him to get his money back. (in many cases the cooling off period does not require a valid reason for canceling, there is NO ONUS ON THE CUSTOMER AT ALL)
- that in the worst case scenario, even if Funcom were not legally obliged to refund the money, common sense, good business practice and reasonable customer oriented policy (which is crucial in a MMORPG since customers NEED to come back) should have pushed those fools to refund the money.
I told you before. There is no case.
lol you told me only that it would not be worth the 35 Euros to go to court
There IS a case. Whether it is worth getting a lawyer etc and how to go about processing a claim is another debate.
Also, read the second paragraph (I'll even post it for you again) :
- that in the worst case scenario, even if Funcom were not legally obliged to refund the money, common sense, good business practice and reasonable customer oriented policy (which is crucial in a MMORPG since customers NEED to come back) should have pushed those fools to refund the money.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
Law.
a. a suit or action at law; cause.
b. a set of facts giving rise to a legal claim, or to a defense to a legal claim.
So, in legal terms -"to have a case" means to have a cause of a law suit that is good enough to be accepted as such in the court room. In your case (our case) this is not the case - any judge would simply put the case under paragraph I cited before. Your case would never get to court btw - the claim is 2 weak. At least not on the EU court at least
no, when someone says "there is a case for ..." it means the position is defendable.
It comes from the legal term (and still holds for legal domain btw) but is used commonly in english. A teacher might say to a student who makes up an excuse for not doing his homework that he has no case.
Now, in our case, it is the case
The point I would like you to understand is that if any part of any law is broken, there is a case, no matter how small the prejudice.
If I want to sue my company because I scraped my knee by slipping on the leaves in the parking lot and falling (when it is their responsability to make sure there are no dead leaves on teh floor) I can.
I have studied law and you would not imagine the number of crazy "cases" taht we study.
However, that is besides the point because he's not thinking of puting a claim is he?
There are two points. The first one is that if legal experts were to debate this issue, they would most likely favour the customer (for the reasons raised in this thread). Even more important is the point that if that was not true, Funcom could have and should have refunded that money ANYWAY.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
Dude, if you read the law they wouldn't - it is everything in the paragraph I quoted. He "broke the seal" and he can go "fuck himself" - there is no Case (writting in capitals might help you understand my standing)- nothing is wrong here by the letter of law. Only the interpretation of that law might offer us something (but than again - if we are in subjective interpretations than even from the propostrous claim that gaming = computer gaming makes the case). And I am not a newb in law either.
he did not "break the seal" since that statement applies to a software.
look let me be clear
he did not purchase a software or any type of game
He purchased a "subscription" (or game TIME) which is to take effect in some months even. So, the "broken seal" point does not apply.
P.S. it is clear beyond doubt that gaming meant gambline, but that is completely besides the point.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
First off, subscription fees are non-refundable. They always have been. They (probably) always will be. Says clearly in the TOS you clicked "I Agree" to login that the fees are not refundable. So trying to get your fee back was pointless.
Second, when I took advantage of the new subscription plan it didn't bill me til my current cycle ended. I did the the helm right away, though the extra vet tokens didn't show up til my cycle began again.
Unless your cycle ended at the time of the offer how would you even know? You either had no plan and got billed when you selected one or you had time left but so little that it fell within a couple day period?
Don't see how the system would act differently for different people. Check your payment history, it will tell you when you were billed and I was billed the moment I extended despite having months left on my current cycle.