New article on Chargebacks and the future of MMOs - Mortal Online is cited as the example

Slapshot1188

Here:

http://mmofallout.com/2010/06/28/the-era-of-riding-initial-sales-is-over/

Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Here:

http://mmofallout.com/2010/06/28/the-era-of-riding-initial-sales-is-over/

 I agree with most of his opinions and when a game has promised features and they don't turn up at launch then I can see a justification for a charge back. Why he'd pick out MO is a bit unclear since there was a long open beta where you could try it out for free and they have actually provided at launch the features they said would be there. Sure not alot of features but still they're there.

If I was to single out a game I'd say AoC, a whole host of features were promised and weren't delivered. Even features listed on the box were not in game! MO is quite the opposite, little hype with only a few features but they were all there at launch.

I also agree with this part of the article too,

" A charge back is not to be used as an excuse to bum-rush your way into a game without doing any research on it, and is not for buyer’s remorse. It is strictly for cases where what you are promised is not what is delivered. In the case where it is found that you issued an illegal charge back, you can be sued for wire-fraud or theft of merchandise, among other charges, depending on where you live."

I think everyone who does this needs to read that first, I believe many are looking for a free trial and are therefore nothing but scammers themselves.

Besttheiswow

Yep..i hope these games burn down..and never ever any company ( not talking about sv or mortal) dare to make bad unfinished games with false adverts and promisses and all stuff we all know now...

godzilr1

Interesting.  wonder what will happen when we the players start ignoring the hype and wait to see reviews and play trials before we commit to the purchase.

HerculesSAS

Great article, and well summarized.

 

If only they covered the auto-subbing to boot.

brostyn

Originally posted by godzilr1

Interesting.  wonder what will happen when we the players start ignoring the hype and wait to see reviews and play trials before we commit to the purchase.

Sorry, but the masses are stupid sheep. Just look at all the people here at MMORPG that latch onto a game before they ever play it. Defending it like its their own flesh and blood. Of course, in the 6 years I've been here its always funny to see the game release, and then those same rabid fanbois latch onto "the next big thing" with the same zealotry.

Tarka

Originally posted by Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Here:

http://mmofallout.com/2010/06/28/the-era-of-riding-initial-sales-is-over/

 I agree with most of his opinions and when a game has promised features and they don't turn up at launch then I can see a justification for a charge back. Why he'd pick out MO is a bit unclear since there was a long open beta where you could try it out for free and they have actually provided at launch the features they said would be there. Sure not alot of features but still they're there.

If I was to single out a game I'd say AoC, a whole host of features were promised and weren't delivered. Even features listed on the box were not in game! MO is quite the opposite, little hype with only a few features but they were all there at launch.

I also agree with this part of the article too,

" A charge back is not to be used as an excuse to bum-rush your way into a game without doing any research on it, and is not for buyer’s remorse. It is strictly for cases where what you are promised is not what is delivered. In the case where it is found that you issued an illegal charge back, you can be sued for wire-fraud or theft of merchandise, among other charges, depending on where you live."

I think everyone who does this needs to read that first, I believe many are looking for a free trial and are therefore nothing but scammers themselves.

 I think both developers AND potential customers have an area of responsibilty.  Developers need to be more responsible in delivering the product in accordance with the specifications.  And players have the responsibility of conducting research before they actually purchasing the product.

You will never eliminate the morons from using chargebacks as a means to "try before you buy", but hopefully if developers start being more responsibile for the quality of their products, then it will be kept to a minimum.

Perhaps one way to combatting the use of "illegal charge backs", would be for companies to actually offer a "trial" of the product for a very short period (e.g. 2 days) even at launch.  Then later on (content permitting) it could be relaxed to be longer.

Kyleran

Actually, what I anticipate happening in the near future is that credit card companies are going to stop permitting charge backs for virtual goods and software purchases based on the non delivery of in game features.

(assuming it is legal for them to do so)

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Here:

http://mmofallout.com/2010/06/28/the-era-of-riding-initial-sales-is-over/

 I agree with most of his opinions and when a game has promised features and they don't turn up at launch then I can see a justification for a charge back. Why he'd pick out MO is a bit unclear since there was a long open beta where you could try it out for free and they have actually provided at launch the features they said would be there. Sure not alot of features but still they're there.

 Probably because the vast majority of pre-orders and people demanding a chargeback came before open beta. You know, those folks that were charged full price back in July 2009 for a product that wasn't delivered until June 2010.  Those same people who bought the boxed version that are STILL waiting for a working DVD to be mailed to them 3 weeks after launch...

Agricola1

Originally posted by Tarka

Originally posted by Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Here:

http://mmofallout.com/2010/06/28/the-era-of-riding-initial-sales-is-over/

 I agree with most of his opinions and when a game has promised features and they don't turn up at launch then I can see a justification for a charge back. Why he'd pick out MO is a bit unclear since there was a long open beta where you could try it out for free and they have actually provided at launch the features they said would be there. Sure not alot of features but still they're there.

If I was to single out a game I'd say AoC, a whole host of features were promised and weren't delivered. Even features listed on the box were not in game! MO is quite the opposite, little hype with only a few features but they were all there at launch.

I also agree with this part of the article too,

" A charge back is not to be used as an excuse to bum-rush your way into a game without doing any research on it, and is not for buyer’s remorse. It is strictly for cases where what you are promised is not what is delivered. In the case where it is found that you issued an illegal charge back, you can be sued for wire-fraud or theft of merchandise, among other charges, depending on where you live."

I think everyone who does this needs to read that first, I believe many are looking for a free trial and are therefore nothing but scammers themselves.

 I think both developers AND potential customers have an area of responsibilty.  Developers need to be more responsible in delivering the product in accordance with the specifications.  And players have the responsibility of conducting research before they actually purchasing the product.

You will never eliminate the morons from using chargebacks as a means to "try before you buy", but hopefully if developers start being more responsibile for the quality of their products, then it will be kept to a minimum.

Perhaps one way to combatting the use of "illegal charge backs", would be for companies to actually offer a "trial" of the product for a very short period (e.g. 2 days) even at launch.

 I agree, making a small trial at launch a compulsory feature at launch for all online games would be a big help. Unless you new about MO before launch you wouldn't have tried it out for free, a 2 day trial would be a good idea for MO or like GA have a limited char with an unlimeted trial?

Harkkum

Originally posted by Agricola1

 I agree, making a small trial at launch a compulsory feature at launch for all online games would be a big help. Unless you new about MO before launch you wouldn't have tried it out for free, a 2 day trial would be a good idea for MO or like GA have a limited char with an unlimeted trial?

Isn't this what open beta is normally for at the launch and then trial periods normally a few months after the launch. This is already a known practice by most of the bigger players and there would have been nothing to condemn Star Vault from if they would have actually had the game's release date public before they started to sell games. The decision to sell the game before it exists will haunt Mortal Online and its developers for years to come (if the game lasts that long). It is also this very same decision that actually has lead to the problems HerculesSAS keeps on pointing out with auto-renew: there is nothing wrong with auto-renew per se, just that it might come as a surprise for a number of people who dropped the game even before it reached open beta.

 

The problem with open beta experience is what we have seen with, say, Aion and Age of Conan. Early on the game looks great and it is justifiable as a purchase but once you get to the meat of it there's nothing but a hollow core. If more and more companies will use this kind of a method where the early gaming experience does not meet up with most of the game, it will be in a way equally bad as this Mortal Online scheme. As such, game companies would have to actually allow players to beta test the entire game content (much like with, say, WoW's beta and Mortal Onlines beta once it started) for it is the only way to guarantee there are no fraudulent marketing. Maybe it would be about time for companies to finally realise that MMOGs are all about longevity and not the boxsales.

Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Here:

http://mmofallout.com/2010/06/28/the-era-of-riding-initial-sales-is-over/

 I agree with most of his opinions and when a game has promised features and they don't turn up at launch then I can see a justification for a charge back. Why he'd pick out MO is a bit unclear since there was a long open beta where you could try it out for free and they have actually provided at launch the features they said would be there. Sure not alot of features but still they're there.

 Probably because the vast majority of pre-orders and people demanding a chargeback came before open beta. You know, those folks that were charged full price back in July 2009 for a product that wasn't delivered until June 2010.  Those same people who bought the boxed version that are STILL waiting for a working DVD to be mailed to them 3 weeks after launch...

 I understand what you're saying but those people that paid a non refundable box price for a beta are kind of ranked along side those that purchase a life time sub for STO (before launch) in pure stupidity in my opinion. I bought MO after I'd tried the free beta and decided I liked the game and it was worth the money for the entertainment.

SV gave an estamated launch date of 2009, but didn't make any garuntee and let's face it you'd have to be pretty naive to think they'd make that date. They'd be the only MMORPG company to release on time in my memory.

It's like those guys that bought a life time sub to STO before launch, I knew they were a bunch of dweebs and so did most people on this site. We all knew it'd crash and burn and within 6 months everyone would be saying "It's dead Jim!" and that life time sub was just a waste of cash as they'd be selling your exclusive toys at some point.

But what can I say? You pay full price to beta a game that might be out by x date and rage about it afterwards then I have no sympathy. It's kind of like someone who takes a piss up a fence that has a big sign on it saying "danger electric fence" then starts to nerd rage because his enny weeny got frazzled!

HerculesSAS

Originally posted by Kyleran

Actually, what I anticipate happening in the near future is that credit card companies are going to stop permitting charge backs for virtual goods and software purchases based on the non delivery of in game features.

(assuming it is legal for them to do so)

It's not. Credit card companies make more cash on the consumer than they do on the merchants -- so their interests will always side with the folks that make them more money. In the US, there's a Consumer Protection Act that just got passed in Congress and it deals with things like chargebacks and finance rates. Suffice it to say, they won't ban chargebacks -- that's the whole point of having a credit card, the protection you get with it. Otherwise, we'd be using cash for everything since there's almost no benefit in using the card.

 

As for Hark's comment about the auto-renew... I think it will be a bigger issue than people want to believe. People can say "well, I wasted $50 on this terrible game, whatever" and move on. But when that company takes their credit card info and keeps it on file, just to enter them into a subscription without their consent, that's actual malice on the part of SV. And needless to say, people are going to be *more* pissed when they find that out, and they will put up a chargeback for it. It's one thing to say you got a crap game, it's quite another to find you're being taken advantage of.

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

 

 Probably because the vast majority of pre-orders and people demanding a chargeback came before open beta. You know, those folks that were charged full price back in July 2009 for a product that wasn't delivered until June 2010.  Those same people who bought the boxed version that are STILL waiting for a working DVD to be mailed to them 3 weeks after launch...

 I understand what you're saying but those people that paid a non refundable box price for a beta are kind of ranked along side those that purchase a life time sub for STO (before launch) in pure stupidity in my opinion. I bought MO after I'd tried the free beta and decided I liked the game and it was worth the money for the entertainment.

 As the article states:

I am picking on Mortal Online specifically in this article because this is the MMO that really popularized the new fight against the idea that once players pre-ordered, they were at the mercy of the developer no matter how many times/years the game was delayed despite accepting orders, and how many features ended up not being in the game, or being broken, at launch. Players issued charge-backs in large numbers on Mortal Online, so much so that many third party forums relating to MMOs/Mortal Online were regularly filled with information, accounts and advocacy for players to perform said charge-backs

HerculesSAS

I have to laugh at how few people realize that StarVault subsidized their entire BETA through the pre-orders. Do you think they would have had a beta at all, if people didn't buy the game early? Do you think they'd have an open beta at all?

 

It would have gone from whatever they had prior to the beta, to launch. And it would have fallen flat on its face because the game was TERRIBLE at that point. Our pre-order dollars bought them an extra year of development, literally.

 

If you took away the ability for a company to preorder, companies like SV would never even exist. I actually don't mind that, because then it would fall back to getting funding through a good solid business plan, financials, and talent. You don't think Google started with a million bucks, do you? It was two guys working in a garage for research at a university, and from their search algorithm, they got funding to get humungous.

 

I prefer all indy companies go that route, because it automatically weeds out the losers. Right now, we subsidized a loser like SV to actually have a chance in the market, where normal market forces would have put them out to pasture long ago. Not many enterprises that work off of daddy's money and their yearning to play an old game (UO) again make it very far.

Diekfoo

Originally posted by merieke82

[Mod Edit]

Yeah, exactly. 

merieke82

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I have to laugh at how few people realize that StarVault subsidized their entire BETA through the pre-orders. Do you think they would have had a beta at all, if people didn't buy the game early? Do you think they'd have an open beta at all?

 

It would have gone from whatever they had prior to the beta, to launch. And it would have fallen flat on its face because the game was TERRIBLE at that point. Our pre-order dollars bought them an extra year of development, literally.

 

If you took away the ability for a company to preorder, companies like SV would never even exist. I actually don't mind that, because then it would fall back to getting funding through a good solid business plan, financials, and talent. You don't think Google started with a million bucks, do you? It was two guys working in a garage for research at a university, and from their search algorithm, they got funding to get humungous.

 

I prefer all indy companies go that route, because it automatically weeds out the losers. Right now, we subsidized a loser like SV to actually have a chance in the market, where normal market forces would have put them out to pasture long ago. Not many enterprises that work off of daddy's money and their yearning to play an old game (UO) again make it very far.

 

We already know that market conditions don't always promote the best possible products. If a demand for a product exists and there is financing available from an interested party, regardless of who it is, then the transaction should take place. Maybe it's high risk, maybe it's not. The stock market is no different.

 

 

Tarka

Originally posted by Harkkum

Originally posted by Agricola1

 I agree, making a small trial at launch a compulsory feature at launch for all online games would be a big help. Unless you new about MO before launch you wouldn't have tried it out for free, a 2 day trial would be a good idea for MO or like GA have a limited char with an unlimeted trial?

Isn't this what open beta is normally for at the launch and then trial periods normally a few months after the launch. This is already a known practice by most of the bigger players and there would have been nothing to condemn Star Vault from if they would have actually had the game's release date public before they started to sell games. The decision to sell the game before it exists will haunt Mortal Online and its developers for years to come (if the game lasts that long). It is also this very same decision that actually has lead to the problems HerculesSAS keeps on pointing out with auto-renew: there is nothing wrong with auto-renew per se, just that it might come as a surprise for a number of people who dropped the game even before it reached open beta.

 

The problem with open beta experience is what we have seen with, say, Aion and Age of Conan. Early on the game looks great and it is justifiable as a purchase but once you get to the meat of it there's nothing but a hollow core. If more and more companies will use this kind of a method where the early gaming experience does not meet up with most of the game, it will be in a way equally bad as this Mortal Online scheme. As such, game companies would have to actually allow players to beta test the entire game content (much like with, say, WoW's beta and Mortal Onlines beta once it started) for it is the only way to guarantee there are no fraudulent marketing. Maybe it would be about time for companies to finally realise that MMOGs are all about longevity and not the boxsales.

 Open Beta is experienced by those who get to know the game prior to launch.  But what about those who are interested in it just AFTER launch? 

A combination of Open Beta, with a very small Post Launch Trial can help people make up their minds BEFORE they actually attempt to purchase the product.  Thus helping to eliminate the actual need for a charge back.

Now, of course, there will always be the chance that the later periods in the game experience will not live up to the expectations of the customer.  And it would be futile to allow a player to experience the entirety of the product before they buy it. But that's were official reviews come in. 

Therefore, PreLaunch Open Beta + PostLaunch Trial + Official Reviews all combine to increase the chances of the public getting the information they need.  That is, whether or not the product is for them.

Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

 

 Probably because the vast majority of pre-orders and people demanding a chargeback came before open beta. You know, those folks that were charged full price back in July 2009 for a product that wasn't delivered until June 2010.  Those same people who bought the boxed version that are STILL waiting for a working DVD to be mailed to them 3 weeks after launch...

 I understand what you're saying but those people that paid a non refundable box price for a beta are kind of ranked along side those that purchase a life time sub for STO (before launch) in pure stupidity in my opinion. I bought MO after I'd tried the free beta and decided I liked the game and it was worth the money for the entertainment.

 As the article states:

I am picking on Mortal Online specifically in this article because this is the MMO that really popularized the new fight against the idea that once players pre-ordered, they were at the mercy of the developer no matter how many times/years the game was delayed despite accepting orders, and how many features ended up not being in the game, or being broken, at launch. Players issued charge-backs in large numbers on Mortal Online, so much so that many third party forums relating to MMOs/Mortal Online were regularly filled with information, accounts and advocacy for players to perform said charge-backs

 I read that but disagree with what he said myself. Pre orders could always be retracted before launch with other games (atleast so I believe), SV wasn't scamming anyone when they made their deal. It was made clear you buy the "pre-order" and you paid the full box price and got into the beta and it was a non refundable "pre-order".

It was named a pre-order but it really wasn't, you were buying the game blindly with no refund to beta test a game you hadn't tried before. Anyone who bought MO under those conditions should have been a big boy and accepted that they may not have liked the game and have wasted their cash, hell it may never have launched. Why a semi intelligent adult would have entered into that contract without understanding this simple premise escapes me.

In short you were making a dice roll and praying it didn't come up snake eyes for the box cost of about $50. Now you want to make a charge back to the casino because you didn't win, well you're scamming the casino. If you couldn't afford to lose that $50 then you shouldn't have been in that casino rolling those dice in the first place.

I only bought it after I'd tried out the game in OB for a while, because I don't like to gamble anymore.

Palebane

That's why you wait for the reviews.

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

 

 As the article states:

I am picking on Mortal Online specifically in this article because this is the MMO that really popularized the new fight against the idea that once players pre-ordered, they were at the mercy of the developer no matter how many times/years the game was delayed despite accepting orders, and how many features ended up not being in the game, or being broken, at launch. Players issued charge-backs in large numbers on Mortal Online, so much so that many third party forums relating to MMOs/Mortal Online were regularly filled with information, accounts and advocacy for players to perform said charge-backs

 I read that but disagree with what he said myself. Pre orders could always be retracted before launch with other games (atleast so I believe), SV wasn't scamming anyone when they made their deal. It was made clear you buy the "pre-order" and you paid the full box price and got into the beta and it was a non refundable "pre-order

 You can have your own opinion.  But luckily there are rules in place that regulate commerce.  When a company behaves wrongly, consumers have the right to chargeback and get their money back.   I did this, and as the article says, so did MANY others.  It's a valid and valuable tool in the fight against shovelware and protects consumers from having their purchase unilaterally converted into an open-ended loan. 

Hopefully future companies will take note of this and maybe we can reverse the trend and actually start to expect (gasp!) games to be released in a reasonable state and within a reasonable time.  As the article says.. companies better be wary of counting on box sales (pre-orders) to fund development as people are starting to revolt!

HerculesSAS

Originally posted by merieke82

We already know that market conditions don't always promote the best possible products. If a demand for a product exists and there is financing available from an interested party, regardless of who it is, then the transaction should take place. Maybe it's high risk, maybe it's not. The stock market is no different.

Stock market is another can of worms - one with big lobbying arms and huge monetary interests. I'm talking on an ethical leval kind of -- one where consumers are protected from predatory companies. Market conditions in an ideal world where a business goes to an investment firm or private investors and has them invest based on a solid business plan is quite different than preying on the hopes of customers that really want XYZ item.

 

In the case of SV, they played to the crowd saying "We have the next UO, right here!", then talking up great things like mage duels as they were in UO, great PvP like UO, crafting like UO, impact on the gameworld like UO, etc. Most of this isn't even in the game, and what little is, sucks -- with the exception of crafting. But they played it right with the hype, got their niche all worked up, and people bought into the idea. Is that the way you feel every MMO company should work? Just play to your crowds wants, collect money, and subsidize development?

 

Because if that's the case, we will never get games that are any good.

Rohn

I'll agree that all companies, MMO companies included, should be held to a certain standard.

The author of that article, however, really failed to make his/her case in a couple of ways.

One of the main allegations made in the article regards missing features that were promised for launch.  The author treats this as simple fact, as though it were common knowledge, but builds no case for it, providing no proof or examples.  It makes the article look either poorly researched, or like a simplistic opinion-based hit job.

What strikes me as really odd about this piece, however, is how the importance of Mortal Online - a fairly obscure MMO - is overblown, which to the casual observer appears an issue of proximity: the writer is emotionally too close to the subject, and likely isn't very objective. 

"In recent years, the focus has shifted to giving an MMO enormous amounts of hype prior to release, to pump up the pre-order sales before the closed beta is even done with, the NDA lifted, and the game can be talked about."

Though this piece focuses exclusively on Mortal Online, it's hard to believe that anyone could say that Mortal Online was the recipient of an "enormous amount of hype".  The hyperbole appears to be more fitting to complaints about games like previous games like AoC or WAR (or even Darkfall), or perhaps future games like SWTOR or GW2 - all of which either received or are receiving truly massive amounts of hype.

"I am picking on Mortal Online specifically in this article because this is the MMO that really popularized the new fight against the idea that once players pre-ordered, they were at the mercy of the developer no matter how many times/years the game was delayed despite accepting orders, and how many features ended up not being in the game, or being broken, at launch. Players issued charge-backs in large numbers on Mortal Online, so much so that many third party forums relating to MMOs/Mortal Online were regularly filled with information, accounts and advocacy for players to perform said charge-backs.."

Many third-party forums?  Regularly filled with information?  Filled?  Really?

Again, no links to this multitude of forums, or proof of the alleged avalanche of advocacy occurred.  Additionally, most chargeback activity relating to Mortal Online occurred almost a year ago, and was caused by delays, not the lack of advertised features at launch - an allegation to which the impreciseness of the writer makes it appear.

Seriously, I find it hard to believe that someone - anyone - would make the statement that something about Mortal Online popularized anything.  As I stated above - MO is a small-market, fairly obscure, niche game.  Most MMO players, let alone gamers, don't even know the game exists.  This lends to my belief that this piece was written by someone with an axe to grind against MO, as they have blown Mortal Online's importance as some sort of watershed event completely out of proportion.

Slapshot, did you write this?

Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Agricola1

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

 

 As the article states:

I am picking on Mortal Online specifically in this article because this is the MMO that really popularized the new fight against the idea that once players pre-ordered, they were at the mercy of the developer no matter how many times/years the game was delayed despite accepting orders, and how many features ended up not being in the game, or being broken, at launch. Players issued charge-backs in large numbers on Mortal Online, so much so that many third party forums relating to MMOs/Mortal Online were regularly filled with information, accounts and advocacy for players to perform said charge-backs

 I read that but disagree with what he said myself. Pre orders could always be retracted before launch with other games (atleast so I believe), SV wasn't scamming anyone when they made their deal. It was made clear you buy the "pre-order" and you paid the full box price and got into the beta and it was a non refundable "pre-order

 You can have your own opinion.  But luckily there are rules in place that regulate commerce.  When a company behaves wrongly, consumers have the right to chargeback and get their money back.   I did this, and as the article says, so did MANY others.  It's a valid and valuable tool in the fight against shovelware and protects consumers from having their purchase unilaterally converted into an open-ended loan. 

Hopefully future companies will take note of this and maybe we can reverse the trend and actually start to expect (gasp!) games to be released in a reasonable state and within a reasonable time.  As the article says.. companies better be wary of counting on box sales (pre-orders) to fund development as people are starting to revolt!

 I agree there are rules to regulate commerce and help protect the consumer, however there are many consumers that abuse these laws and regulations to their own benefit.

For example someone purchases a piece of software to beta test it, the software has no garunteed release date just a proposed one. The consumer discovers they don't like the software or becomes disgruntled because it didn't release when he/she hoped it would. So the consumer decides they want to welch on the deal and do a charge back telling their credit card company it was because they didn't recieve the product advertised or whatever.

That would be a false claim not only does that consumer break the rules of the deal they made with the software company they abuse the consumer protection laws meant to protect others. This kind of person is a free loader and will only make it harder for those genuine consumers to get protection in the future from real scams. In short we all get punished because some people get sour grapes after entering a deal and decide to welch on it.

But as you say that's just my opinion.

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Rohn

Slapshot, did you write this?

 ROFL.. if I had written it I wouldn't have left out the multitude of reasons for chargebacks.  Like the boxes that arrived with an unplayable disc (which we were told would be replaced at launch...  anyone get a disc?).  Like the decision to have everyones subscription start at launch.  Like the decision to ninja-subscribe people that stopped playing 10 months ago...

 

Etc etc...

 

So no... it's safe to say that I didn't write this.

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Agricola1

 

 I agree there are rules to regulate commerce and help protect the consumer, however there are many consumers that abuse these laws and regulations to their own benefit.

 Sure there are.  That's a totally different argument though.  Heck... in my case do you know that SV didn't even RESPOND to the Credit Card company?  See the law is crystal clear.  You HAVE to deliver the product within X days of charge (I think it's 30).

 

The only excuse is it it is custom made to order.

 

Since they charged us, but never delivered.. it was an open/shut case.   I honestly think the only reason they sent the useless and non-functioning DVDs out was to be bale to tell the CC companies that they sent "something" out...