Things go on sale all the time. People pay full price for games just to have them go on sale the very next week.
Get over it.
Edited 'cause I misspelled a word. Don't want the spelling Nazi's after me.
Yes, but we're talking about closed alpha/beta here.
Some of you are missing the point entirely. We're talking about an unreleased product, that's still being tested and closed off to the public. Charging admission to preview the product, or test it, and to show loyalty, is what the Founder's pack was supposed to be about. Now that loyalty is broken, by allowing others to get in cheaper. It's a very bad decision.
The founders pack was about getting a box price off something that wouldn't otherwise have one. Nothing more nothing less.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
SOE has the right to sell their products for whatever price they see fit, regardless of how much they may have charged before.
You paid more for your founders packs than others will. OH NOES! Thus is the way of business.
At peak, sell high. Drive sales spikes to maintain healthy margins using sales and incentives. When sales decline beyond a point where such measures keep averages up, cut prices permanently in incremental stages depending on the health of the sales figures.
Whoooa, so they are offering the Trail Blazer pack? With the title, flag and all?
After a little research I see the title is not available to new purchases. The flag and clothing is however. I can certainly see how people who thought the gear and flag were exclusive would be upset.
They will probably sell the same "Trail Blazer" package at launch too.
I get the HAHA responses to the OP, but I also think this is an unforced error by SOE. A tiny bit of thought and a couple of tweaks could have eliminated most of the concerns. Perhaps they'll learn and avoid this for EQN. Perhaps.
Originally posted by Aztec Despite some opposition I still know my feelings on the matter are correct for me. I feel robbed and kicked in the ballz. You should never put the customer in such a position. This is business etiquette 101. People in this new generation are used to that I guess. I remember a time were companies cherished their customers and planned and thought ahead to avoid these issues from being created. SOE's gross incompetence is not my problem. I did file a chargeback today and I wash my hands of this company and their shady practices. Thanks for your input on the matter.
You got what you paid for. You are committing credit fraud with a chargeback, as chargebacks are for fraudulent charges against your account. You could instead contact SOE and see if they will credit you the balance of the discount.
Categorically incorrect.
In the US at least, so long as a product is "pre-release" or "alpha/beta" for software, a customer is literally entitled to a refund.
While this customer could have contacted SOE for a refund, (and SOE would have been required to offer a refund) the end result is the same. So, meh.
And further, a customer is not required to stay on the phone for 3 hours with customer service, while they talk you out of trying to get a refund. Just call it "unable to reach a resolution" with the vendor after spending 20 mins on hold. Which is a valid reason for a chargeback.
This is the risk that these software companies run by pre-selling alpha/beta access to unfinished games. They want the early and big money, they are on the hook to refund literally everyone before the game "launches".
They have updated the Founder's Pack page to reflect Beta, so I am unable to research the correct wording. They offered unlimited access to Alpha in their Trailblazer pack, but as alpha is over, that part of the pack is no longer offered.
from Nov 2013 - when founders packs were first announced (pic at link)
technically, anyone who buys the founders pack now deserves a discount. Those who paid 100 bucks has had much longer time to play, has picked better claim spots and has had less people to deal with. Now that's value!!
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
Originally posted by Aztec Despite some opposition I still know my feelings on the matter are correct for me. I feel robbed and kicked in the ballz. You should never put the customer in such a position. This is business etiquette 101. People in this new generation are used to that I guess. I remember a time where companies cherished their customers and planned and thought ahead to avoid these issues from being created. SOE's gross incompetence is not my problem. I did file a chargeback today and I wash my hands of this company and their shady practices. Thanks for your input on the matter.
I doubt you were born yesterday. This is how all things sold work. From groceries, to furniture, to cars, to games.
You are better off learning from this mistake and next time wait for the sale (which will undoubtly happen), rather than point at the company and accuse them of robbing you. They didn't rob you. You just didn't think this through.
Man, it's like you have never bought anything yourself.
Not that I am the biggest SOE fan after what they contributed to the demise of SWG, but what you say doesn't make sense at all.
Your paying for alpha / beta testing and should have known sooner or later when a company uses Steam to distribute, it will go on sale. I wouldn't even doubt if ArcheAge follows this same process.
It's called business unfortunately and everyone has to pay their bills at the end of the month, even soe and steam.
Now a rip off would be, you paid for something and got nothing in return.
Originally posted by observer Originally posted by NyghthowlerSeriously.....Things go on sale all the time. People pay full price for games just to have them go on sale the very next week.Get over it.Edited 'cause I misspelled a word. Don't want the spelling Nazi's after me.
Yes, but we're talking about closed alpha/beta here.
Some of you are missing the point entirely. We're talking about an unreleased product, that's still being tested and closed off to the public. Charging admission to preview the product, or test it, and to show loyalty, is what the Founder's pack was supposed to be about. Now that loyalty is broken, by allowing others to get in cheaper. It's a very bad decision.
wtf is loyalty to compnay? They make a product if you like it you pay for it.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Originally posted by Aztec Despite some opposition I still know my feelings on the matter are correct for me. I feel robbed and kicked in the ballz. You should never put the customer in such a position. This is business etiquette 101. People in this new generation are used to that I guess. I remember a time were companies cherished their customers and planned and thought ahead to avoid these issues from being created. SOE's gross incompetence is not my problem. I did file a chargeback today and I wash my hands of this company and their shady practices. Thanks for your input on the matter.
You got what you paid for. You are committing credit fraud with a chargeback, as chargebacks are for fraudulent charges against your account. You could instead contact SOE and see if they will credit you the balance of the discount.
Categorically incorrect.
In the US at least, so long as a product is "pre-release" or "alpha/beta" for software, a customer is literally entitled to a refund.
While this customer could have contacted SOE for a refund, (and SOE would have been required to offer a refund) the end result is the same. So, meh.
And further, a customer is not required to stay on the phone for 3 hours with customer service, while they talk you out of trying to get a refund. Just call it "unable to reach a resolution" with the vendor after spending 20 mins on hold. Which is a valid reason for a chargeback.
This is the risk that these software companies run by pre-selling alpha/beta access to unfinished games. They want the early and big money, they are on the hook to refund literally everyone before the game "launches".
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Chargebacks can also be contested by the company they were issued against.
All they have to do is prove they provided the service as advertised, which in this case is "Digital access to the product which was consumed by the customer" and your bank will then reverse the chargeback.
Its also fraudulent to seek a chargeback on something if you do not have legitimate grounds, which are not limited to
False advertising
Failure to supply goods and or services as promised in the event of full payment where such services are reasonably practical to be provided.
Withdrawment from the agreement to provide services without suitable notice except where implied in the agreement of sale (Your EULA).
Goods or services not fit for the purpose in which they were sold.
Putting a chargeback through because of buyers regret is simply fraud, most companies will eat up small amounts of it and simply sanction the account that issued them, but many can and do successfully contest chargebacks in the majority of cases.
Not that I am stating a point of view on the original issue, I think sales happen life sucks, yes putting a game on sale before its even released is something that is a bit weird, but considering beta is coming to an end in the next few months, not wholly unsurprising. But spreading false information about what chargebacks are is rather bad form, if the guy or gal follows your instructions and ends up being countered with a fraud suit then they have only them selves to blame.
TLDR Chargebacks are not the same as a "refund" and "Unable to reach agreement with vendor" is a reasonable excuse if the vendor is refusing to provide the goods or services as advertised, not when its simply a case of buyers regret.
Originally posted by NyghthowlerSeriously.....Things go on sale all the time. People pay full price for games just to have them go on sale the very next week.Get over it.Edited 'cause I misspelled a word. Don't want the spelling Nazi's after me.
Yes, but we're talking about closed alpha/beta here.
Some of you are missing the point entirely. We're talking about an unreleased product, that's still being tested and closed off to the public. Charging admission to preview the product, or test it, and to show loyalty, is what the Founder's pack was supposed to be about. Now that loyalty is broken, by allowing others to get in cheaper. It's a very bad decision.
wtf is loyalty to compnay? They make a product if you like it you pay for it.
I ask that question every time I see the phrase "Wont play if its not on steam"
Originally posted by Aztec Despite some opposition I still know my feelings on the matter are correct for me. I feel robbed and kicked in the ballz. You should never put the customer in such a position. This is business etiquette 101. People in this new generation are used to that I guess. I remember a time were companies cherished their customers and planned and thought ahead to avoid these issues from being created. SOE's gross incompetence is not my problem. I did file a chargeback today and I wash my hands of this company and their shady practices. Thanks for your input on the matter.
You got what you paid for. You are committing credit fraud with a chargeback, as chargebacks are for fraudulent charges against your account. You could instead contact SOE and see if they will credit you the balance of the discount.
Categorically incorrect.
In the US at least, so long as a product is "pre-release" or "alpha/beta" for software, a customer is literally entitled to a refund.
While this customer could have contacted SOE for a refund, (and SOE would have been required to offer a refund) the end result is the same. So, meh.
And further, a customer is not required to stay on the phone for 3 hours with customer service, while they talk you out of trying to get a refund. Just call it "unable to reach a resolution" with the vendor after spending 20 mins on hold. Which is a valid reason for a chargeback.
This is the risk that these software companies run by pre-selling alpha/beta access to unfinished games. They want the early and big money, they are on the hook to refund literally everyone before the game "launches".
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
I did contact SOE numerous times and they said I was not entitled to a refund so I did my own refund. I did not feel like wasting anymore time with them.
Originally posted by Aztec Despite some opposition I still know my feelings on the matter are correct for me. I feel robbed and kicked in the ballz. You should never put the customer in such a position. This is business etiquette 101. People in this new generation are used to that I guess. I remember a time were companies cherished their customers and planned and thought ahead to avoid these issues from being created. SOE's gross incompetence is not my problem. I did file a chargeback today and I wash my hands of this company and their shady practices. Thanks for your input on the matter.
You got what you paid for. You are committing credit fraud with a chargeback, as chargebacks are for fraudulent charges against your account. You could instead contact SOE and see if they will credit you the balance of the discount.
Categorically incorrect.
In the US at least, so long as a product is "pre-release" or "alpha/beta" for software, a customer is literally entitled to a refund.
While this customer could have contacted SOE for a refund, (and SOE would have been required to offer a refund) the end result is the same. So, meh.
And further, a customer is not required to stay on the phone for 3 hours with customer service, while they talk you out of trying to get a refund. Just call it "unable to reach a resolution" with the vendor after spending 20 mins on hold. Which is a valid reason for a chargeback.
This is the risk that these software companies run by pre-selling alpha/beta access to unfinished games. They want the early and big money, they are on the hook to refund literally everyone before the game "launches".
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Chargebacks can also be contested by the company they were issued against.
All they have to do is prove they provided the service as advertised, which in this case is "Digital access to the product which was consumed by the customer" and your bank will then reverse the chargeback.
Its also fraudulent to seek a chargeback on something if you do not have legitimate grounds, which are not limited to
False advertising
Failure to supply goods and or services as promised in the event of full payment where such services are reasonably practical to be provided.
Withdrawment from the agreement to provide services without suitable notice except where implied in the agreement of sale (Your EULA).
Goods or services not fit for the purpose in which they were sold.
Putting a chargeback through because of buyers regret is simply fraud, most companies will eat up small amounts of it and simply sanction the account that issued them, but many can and do successfully contest chargebacks in the majority of cases.
Not that I am stating a point of view on the original issue, I think sales happen life sucks, yes putting a game on sale before its even released is something that is a bit weird, but considering beta is coming to an end in the next few months, not wholly unsurprising. But spreading false information about what chargebacks are is rather bad form, if the guy or gal follows your instructions and ends up being countered with a fraud suit then they have only them selves to blame.
TLDR Chargebacks are not the same as a "refund" and "Unable to reach agreement with vendor" is a reasonable excuse if the vendor is refusing to provide the goods or services as advertised, not when its simply a case of buyers regret.
Perhaps I need to make it more simple for you: Under US consumer protection law, all customers are legally entitled to a refund for pre-release software, regardless of the cause, period.
All it needs to be, is "alpha/beta" and that is it.
The customer is ENTITLED to a refund, no matter what any EULA says. No EULA can violate a consumers rights and stand up.
None of that other stuff you said, matters, in the face of that, so long as the customer "attempted to get a refund" to which he/she is entitled. And that could be a couple busy signals on the CS line. Again, because it is an "alpha/beta" product and thus not complete in the eyes of the law. That is enough.
If the customer were "nice" he could have tried harder to save SOE the chargeback fee, but he isn't really required to do that either.
Yeah, consumer rights are a terrible thing, right?
(And I have dealt with these issue a number of times in my RL job, and it is EXACTLY this way.)
Originally posted by Aztec Despite some opposition I still know my feelings on the matter are correct for me. I feel robbed and kicked in the ballz. You should never put the customer in such a position. This is business etiquette 101. People in this new generation are used to that I guess. I remember a time were companies cherished their customers and planned and thought ahead to avoid these issues from being created. SOE's gross incompetence is not my problem. I did file a chargeback today and I wash my hands of this company and their shady practices. Thanks for your input on the matter.
You got what you paid for. You are committing credit fraud with a chargeback, as chargebacks are for fraudulent charges against your account. You could instead contact SOE and see if they will credit you the balance of the discount.
Categorically incorrect.
In the US at least, so long as a product is "pre-release" or "alpha/beta" for software, a customer is literally entitled to a refund.
While this customer could have contacted SOE for a refund, (and SOE would have been required to offer a refund) the end result is the same. So, meh.
And further, a customer is not required to stay on the phone for 3 hours with customer service, while they talk you out of trying to get a refund. Just call it "unable to reach a resolution" with the vendor after spending 20 mins on hold. Which is a valid reason for a chargeback.
This is the risk that these software companies run by pre-selling alpha/beta access to unfinished games. They want the early and big money, they are on the hook to refund literally everyone before the game "launches".
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
I did contact SOE numerous times and they said I was not entitled to a refund so I did my own refund. I did not feel like wasting anymore time with them.
IF and I am only saying IF you put significant play time into the game then they might have grounds for that, but given that they had committed publicly to honouring any refund request during Alpha (Im not sure if that extended to beta) then they would have grounds to contest it if you were filing it later than that, but also I find it odd that they went against their own well advertised policy. You might want to take that part up with them too.
Like I said, the mostly likely action is simply a sanction on the account, but don't be surprised if that charge-back gets reversed, they have a year window to contest it and if successful your bank will simply remove that money from your account to cover the fact they paid back the charge-back, your bank will also likely charge you for that.
I'm not trying to put anyone off any particular course of action, but the post was full of a lot of potentially damaging information and I wanted to set the record straight. Charge back abuse is also monitored professionally and services such as http://www.chargebackprotection.org/service.html are becoming more popular with companies, frequent flliers of charge backs will find their card simply declined by companies who use services like this.
Now as I said, in the majority of cases online service providers simply sanction the account and black list the credit card internally, but if there is a secondary industry for keeping tabs on chargeback abuse, you can guarantee legislation is coming, any privilege once misused can and will be either withdrawn or taxed, something to keep in mind.
Originally posted by Aztec Despite some opposition I still know my feelings on the matter are correct for me. I feel robbed and kicked in the ballz. You should never put the customer in such a position. This is business etiquette 101. People in this new generation are used to that I guess. I remember a time were companies cherished their customers and planned and thought ahead to avoid these issues from being created. SOE's gross incompetence is not my problem. I did file a chargeback today and I wash my hands of this company and their shady practices. Thanks for your input on the matter.
You got what you paid for. You are committing credit fraud with a chargeback, as chargebacks are for fraudulent charges against your account. You could instead contact SOE and see if they will credit you the balance of the discount.
Categorically incorrect.
In the US at least, so long as a product is "pre-release" or "alpha/beta" for software, a customer is literally entitled to a refund.
While this customer could have contacted SOE for a refund, (and SOE would have been required to offer a refund) the end result is the same. So, meh.
And further, a customer is not required to stay on the phone for 3 hours with customer service, while they talk you out of trying to get a refund. Just call it "unable to reach a resolution" with the vendor after spending 20 mins on hold. Which is a valid reason for a chargeback.
This is the risk that these software companies run by pre-selling alpha/beta access to unfinished games. They want the early and big money, they are on the hook to refund literally everyone before the game "launches".
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Chargebacks can also be contested by the company they were issued against.
All they have to do is prove they provided the service as advertised, which in this case is "Digital access to the product which was consumed by the customer" and your bank will then reverse the chargeback.
Its also fraudulent to seek a chargeback on something if you do not have legitimate grounds, which are not limited to
False advertising
Failure to supply goods and or services as promised in the event of full payment where such services are reasonably practical to be provided.
Withdrawment from the agreement to provide services without suitable notice except where implied in the agreement of sale (Your EULA).
Goods or services not fit for the purpose in which they were sold.
Putting a chargeback through because of buyers regret is simply fraud, most companies will eat up small amounts of it and simply sanction the account that issued them, but many can and do successfully contest chargebacks in the majority of cases.
Not that I am stating a point of view on the original issue, I think sales happen life sucks, yes putting a game on sale before its even released is something that is a bit weird, but considering beta is coming to an end in the next few months, not wholly unsurprising. But spreading false information about what chargebacks are is rather bad form, if the guy or gal follows your instructions and ends up being countered with a fraud suit then they have only them selves to blame.
TLDR Chargebacks are not the same as a "refund" and "Unable to reach agreement with vendor" is a reasonable excuse if the vendor is refusing to provide the goods or services as advertised, not when its simply a case of buyers regret.
Perhaps I need to make it more simple for you: Under US consumer protection law, all customers are legally entitled to a refund for pre-release software, regardless of the cause, period.
All it needs to be, is "alpha/beta" and that is it.
The customer is ENTITLED to a refund, no matter what any EULA says. No EULA can violate a consumers rights and stand up.
None of that other stuff you said, matters, in the face of that, so long as the customer "attempted to get a refund" to which he/she is entitled. And that could be a couple busy signals on the CS line. Again, because it is an "alpha/beta" product and thus not complete in the eyes of the law. That is enough.
If the customer were "nice" he could have tried harder to save SOE the chargeback fee, but he isn't really required to do that either.
Yeah, consumer rights are a terrible thing, right?
(And I have dealt with these issue a number of times in my RL job, and it is EXACTLY this way.)
Despite the good words, sir.
i must say, not really, because legally, they are now selling a product that is viable to change based on decision by the develepor, therefore you buy the "priviledge" to help "create" a game....lame, but true
edit: nothing, wanted to change it, but who cares, really
Perhaps I need to make it more simple for you: Under US consumer protection law, all customers are legally entitled to a refund for pre-release software, regardless of the cause, period.
All it needs to be, is "alpha/beta" and that is it.
The customer is ENTITLED to a refund, no matter what any EULA says. No EULA can violate a consumers rights and stand up.
None of that other stuff you said, matters, in the face of that, so long as the customer "attempted to get a refund" to which he/she is entitled. And that could be a couple busy signals on the CS line. Again, because it is an "alpha/beta" product and thus not complete in the eyes of the law. That is enough.
If the customer were "nice" he could have tried harder to save SOE the chargeback fee, but he isn't really required to do that either.
Yeah, consumer rights are a terrible thing, right?
(And I have dealt with these issue a number of times in my RL job, and it is EXACTLY this way.)
This is Consumer Protection Law? Where does one get a copy of this and what exact section is applicable in this case just in case I need it for court. Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by Aztec Despite some opposition I still know my feelings on the matter are correct for me. I feel robbed and kicked in the ballz. You should never put the customer in such a position. This is business etiquette 101. People in this new generation are used to that I guess. I remember a time were companies cherished their customers and planned and thought ahead to avoid these issues from being created. SOE's gross incompetence is not my problem. I did file a chargeback today and I wash my hands of this company and their shady practices. Thanks for your input on the matter.
You got what you paid for. You are committing credit fraud with a chargeback, as chargebacks are for fraudulent charges against your account. You could instead contact SOE and see if they will credit you the balance of the discount.
Categorically incorrect.
In the US at least, so long as a product is "pre-release" or "alpha/beta" for software, a customer is literally entitled to a refund.
While this customer could have contacted SOE for a refund, (and SOE would have been required to offer a refund) the end result is the same. So, meh.
And further, a customer is not required to stay on the phone for 3 hours with customer service, while they talk you out of trying to get a refund. Just call it "unable to reach a resolution" with the vendor after spending 20 mins on hold. Which is a valid reason for a chargeback.
This is the risk that these software companies run by pre-selling alpha/beta access to unfinished games. They want the early and big money, they are on the hook to refund literally everyone before the game "launches".
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Chargebacks can also be contested by the company they were issued against.
All they have to do is prove they provided the service as advertised, which in this case is "Digital access to the product which was consumed by the customer" and your bank will then reverse the chargeback.
Its also fraudulent to seek a chargeback on something if you do not have legitimate grounds, which are not limited to
False advertising
Failure to supply goods and or services as promised in the event of full payment where such services are reasonably practical to be provided.
Withdrawment from the agreement to provide services without suitable notice except where implied in the agreement of sale (Your EULA).
Goods or services not fit for the purpose in which they were sold.
Putting a chargeback through because of buyers regret is simply fraud, most companies will eat up small amounts of it and simply sanction the account that issued them, but many can and do successfully contest chargebacks in the majority of cases.
Not that I am stating a point of view on the original issue, I think sales happen life sucks, yes putting a game on sale before its even released is something that is a bit weird, but considering beta is coming to an end in the next few months, not wholly unsurprising. But spreading false information about what chargebacks are is rather bad form, if the guy or gal follows your instructions and ends up being countered with a fraud suit then they have only them selves to blame.
TLDR Chargebacks are not the same as a "refund" and "Unable to reach agreement with vendor" is a reasonable excuse if the vendor is refusing to provide the goods or services as advertised, not when its simply a case of buyers regret.
Perhaps I need to make it more simple for you: Under US consumer protection law, all customers are legally entitled to a refund for pre-release software, regardless of the cause, period.
All it needs to be, is "alpha/beta" and that is it.
The customer is ENTITLED to a refund, no matter what any EULA says. No EULA can violate a consumers rights and stand up.
None of that other stuff you said, matters, in the face of that, so long as the customer "attempted to get a refund" to which he/she is entitled. And that could be a couple busy signals on the CS line. Again, because it is an "alpha/beta" product and thus not complete in the eyes of the law. That is enough.
If the customer were "nice" he could have tried harder to save SOE the chargeback fee, but he isn't really required to do that either.
Yeah, consumer rights are a terrible thing, right?
(And I have dealt with these issue a number of times in my RL job, and it is EXACTLY this way.)
Despite the good words, sir.
i must say, not really, because legally, they are now selling a product that is viable to change based on decision by the develepor, therefore you buy the "priviledge" to help "create" a game....lame, but true
That might be what "they" say... and it might even be what the EULA says.
But the courts in several software and non-software related cases have said clearly, that a pre-release/prototype/not completed product is entitled to a refund.
It is a bright line, it is clear, it does not matter what the company says, only what the law says.
And yes, the company is fully within their rights to blackball the customer or CC number, in cases where they were "forced to give a refund" or a chargeback took place, but that does not mean the customer was i the wrong for doing so, in the eyes of the law.
Just because the companies keep selling alpha/beta products like a finished item, does not mean it is so.
I bought a TV once and it went on sale two days later. I wrote it off as bad timing. Its almost a given that anytime an item goes on sale, somebody purchased the item the day before at full price. I've never heard of there being a grace period before an item goes on sale. Its just business.
In your case you likely could have gotten the discount. Most stores will match a sale price if you bought an item within 7 days before it went on sale. Some states even have a law similar to this.
Originally posted by Aztec Despite some opposition I still know my feelings on the matter are correct for me. I feel robbed and kicked in the ballz. You should never put the customer in such a position. This is business etiquette 101. People in this new generation are used to that I guess. I remember a time were companies cherished their customers and planned and thought ahead to avoid these issues from being created. SOE's gross incompetence is not my problem. I did file a chargeback today and I wash my hands of this company and their shady practices. Thanks for your input on the matter.
You got what you paid for. You are committing credit fraud with a chargeback, as chargebacks are for fraudulent charges against your account. You could instead contact SOE and see if they will credit you the balance of the discount.
Categorically incorrect.
In the US at least, so long as a product is "pre-release" or "alpha/beta" for software, a customer is literally entitled to a refund.
While this customer could have contacted SOE for a refund, (and SOE would have been required to offer a refund) the end result is the same. So, meh.
And further, a customer is not required to stay on the phone for 3 hours with customer service, while they talk you out of trying to get a refund. Just call it "unable to reach a resolution" with the vendor after spending 20 mins on hold. Which is a valid reason for a chargeback.
This is the risk that these software companies run by pre-selling alpha/beta access to unfinished games. They want the early and big money, they are on the hook to refund literally everyone before the game "launches".
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
I did contact SOE numerous times and they said I was not entitled to a refund so I did my own refund. I did not feel like wasting anymore time with them.
I can't feel sorry for you, I just can't. You paid to test a game (which in and of itself speaks volumes not so much about you but how money hungry companies are) and you actually thought this wouldn't happen? If Collector's Editions go on sale for massive discounts, why would you expect anything in this case to be different? The only thing that was wrong were your false impressions.
You fell for a money grab pure and simple and SOE was not the first nor will they be the last to do this type of thing.
The Pre-release software clause in consumer protection laws only applies if the software has not been installed AND accessed and only for a limited period of time. Or for the standard cooling off period for non direct sales.
Again though, what you buy with the founders packs is the perks that come with it, not the software license its self (Which is provided upon launch) so again, the digital goods and services which were paid for have been supplied.
Consumer rights are a great thing when applied correctly, also class action waivers as is binding your self to agree to arbitration if a dispute outside of the terms of the agreement happens.
Again, chargebacks are a good thing, empowering people to protect them selves from actual fraud, but misuse of them will mean they are legislated more effectively in the future. I am not saying any case quoted here was or was not abuse, I am simply trying to provide my own knowledge (and yes I have worked in fraud preventative environments before too, but anyway, enough arm chair lawyering from me, like I said, good luck).
Federal Trade Commission Statement. In a phone call on 11 September 2008, a Federal Trade Commission representative stated the following, “I’m not aware of any Federal law stating that software can’t be returned. I’ve just searched my database and can’t find anything. I’ve never heard of it before.” [Source: Cindy, last name withheld for privacy] Documents available on the Federal Trade Commission website include the following statements regarding software returns.
“… that the right to refund can be satisfied by a legal requirement, and that legal requirement is UCITA itself. So, automatically it will say in mass market licensing you have a right to refund. There is a right to refund under UCITA…” (Source: Symposium Transcript, 27 October 2000, page 308, lines 4-8) [PDF]
“…if you bought software as a consumer or as a small business under certain circumstances and the software doesn’t work, you can go back to the manufacturer or back to the retailer and demand a refund, just as you can get a refund for a tangible good that doesn’t work.” (Source: SymposiumTranscript, 27 October 2000, page 315, 11-16) [PDF]
By extension, it is assumed that no alpha/beta product is complete, does everything advertised, and works completely, thus, the requirement for a universal (or nearly so) refund for alpha/beta software. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RELEASED YET!
Here is the summary for the whole entry:
Summary. According to the U.S. Government Federal Trade Commission, consumers have the legal right to return software for a full refund (or perhaps in-store credit) if it is defective, or does not work on their computer, or if it did not perform as advertised, or if they simply decide that for any reason they were not completely satisfied with the product. The validity of this fact is demonstrated by the prevalence of resellers and software manufacturers who offer a 100% money back satisfaction guarantee on their software.
The Pre-release software clause in consumer protection laws only applies if the software has not been installed AND accessed and only for a limited period of time. Or for the standard cooling off period for non direct sales.
Again though, what you buy with the founders packs is the perks that come with it, not the software license its self (Which is provided upon launch) so again, the digital goods and services which were paid for have been supplied.
Consumer rights are a great thing when applied correctly, also class action waivers as is binding your self to agree to arbitration if a dispute outside of the terms of the agreement happens.
Again, chargebacks are a good thing, empowering people to protect them selves from actual fraud, but misuse of them will mean they are legislated more effectively in the future. I am not saying any case quoted here was or was not abuse, I am simply trying to provide my own knowledge (and yes I have worked in fraud preventative environments before too, but anyway, enough arm chair lawyering from me, like I said, good luck).
so maybe you can agrre with me on this..
The lines are blurring, and laws old, no longer can we define a finished product, when we can agree that an mmo is never finished? im no lawman, but i think its along those lines the companies think, maybe.
Originally posted by Aztec SOE just ripped off all the founders of the game by making a 66% off sale for all founders packs. Most of these people paid 100- bucks for something that is now 33-. SOE does not even care and is covering up the rage on their forums by banning everyone who speaks negatively about the 66% off sale. One would think that SOE would not be so stupid as to alienate their loyal customers but they are. I just left them for good as this is probably how they will handle most situations, poorly.
If you initially bought in you had six months of play. In that time you could have been honing your building skills and created templates that have been selling on the marketplace for the last month or two making real money. If SoE had done this sale after a couple months I could see the rage but not six months after the fact.
Comments
The founders pack was about getting a box price off something that wouldn't otherwise have one. Nothing more nothing less.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
SOE has the right to sell their products for whatever price they see fit, regardless of how much they may have charged before.
You paid more for your founders packs than others will. OH NOES! Thus is the way of business.
At peak, sell high. Drive sales spikes to maintain healthy margins using sales and incentives. When sales decline beyond a point where such measures keep averages up, cut prices permanently in incremental stages depending on the health of the sales figures.
After a little research I see the title is not available to new purchases. The flag and clothing is however. I can certainly see how people who thought the gear and flag were exclusive would be upset.
They will probably sell the same "Trail Blazer" package at launch too.
Avatars are people too
Categorically incorrect.
In the US at least, so long as a product is "pre-release" or "alpha/beta" for software, a customer is literally entitled to a refund.
While this customer could have contacted SOE for a refund, (and SOE would have been required to offer a refund) the end result is the same. So, meh.
And further, a customer is not required to stay on the phone for 3 hours with customer service, while they talk you out of trying to get a refund. Just call it "unable to reach a resolution" with the vendor after spending 20 mins on hold. Which is a valid reason for a chargeback.
This is the risk that these software companies run by pre-selling alpha/beta access to unfinished games. They want the early and big money, they are on the hook to refund literally everyone before the game "launches".
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
from Nov 2013 - when founders packs were first announced (pic at link)
http://www.blogcdn.com/massively.joystiq.com/media/2013/11/founders-original.jpg
http://www.eqhammer.com/news/landmark-beta-dates-and-founders-program-announced
Trailblazer Pack - $99.99
(Italicized Items are Exclusive to Pre-Sale/Alpha Period)
Includes all items from Settler Pack and Explorer Pack Plus:
EQ2 fan sites
Large companies/corporations rip you off worse than that everyday of your life.
Not just you, it's all of us. Sit & bitch or do something. That is the choice. You have chosen to bitch; hence the flames.
Better luck next time, OP.
technically, anyone who buys the founders pack now deserves a discount. Those who paid 100 bucks has had much longer time to play, has picked better claim spots and has had less people to deal with. Now that's value!!
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
I doubt you were born yesterday. This is how all things sold work. From groceries, to furniture, to cars, to games.
You are better off learning from this mistake and next time wait for the sale (which will undoubtly happen), rather than point at the company and accuse them of robbing you. They didn't rob you. You just didn't think this through.
Man, it's like you have never bought anything yourself.
To OP
Not that I am the biggest SOE fan after what they contributed to the demise of SWG, but what you say doesn't make sense at all.
Your paying for alpha / beta testing and should have known sooner or later when a company uses Steam to distribute, it will go on sale. I wouldn't even doubt if ArcheAge follows this same process.
It's called business unfortunately and everyone has to pay their bills at the end of the month, even soe and steam.
Now a rip off would be, you paid for something and got nothing in return.
Some of you are missing the point entirely. We're talking about an unreleased product, that's still being tested and closed off to the public. Charging admission to preview the product, or test it, and to show loyalty, is what the Founder's pack was supposed to be about. Now that loyalty is broken, by allowing others to get in cheaper. It's a very bad decision.
wtf is loyalty to compnay? They make a product if you like it you pay for it.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Chargebacks can also be contested by the company they were issued against.
All they have to do is prove they provided the service as advertised, which in this case is "Digital access to the product which was consumed by the customer" and your bank will then reverse the chargeback.
Its also fraudulent to seek a chargeback on something if you do not have legitimate grounds, which are not limited to
False advertising
Failure to supply goods and or services as promised in the event of full payment where such services are reasonably practical to be provided.
Withdrawment from the agreement to provide services without suitable notice except where implied in the agreement of sale (Your EULA).
Goods or services not fit for the purpose in which they were sold.
Putting a chargeback through because of buyers regret is simply fraud, most companies will eat up small amounts of it and simply sanction the account that issued them, but many can and do successfully contest chargebacks in the majority of cases.
Not that I am stating a point of view on the original issue, I think sales happen life sucks, yes putting a game on sale before its even released is something that is a bit weird, but considering beta is coming to an end in the next few months, not wholly unsurprising. But spreading false information about what chargebacks are is rather bad form, if the guy or gal follows your instructions and ends up being countered with a fraud suit then they have only them selves to blame.
TLDR Chargebacks are not the same as a "refund" and "Unable to reach agreement with vendor" is a reasonable excuse if the vendor is refusing to provide the goods or services as advertised, not when its simply a case of buyers regret.
I ask that question every time I see the phrase "Wont play if its not on steam"
I did contact SOE numerous times and they said I was not entitled to a refund so I did my own refund. I did not feel like wasting anymore time with them.
Perhaps I need to make it more simple for you: Under US consumer protection law, all customers are legally entitled to a refund for pre-release software, regardless of the cause, period.
All it needs to be, is "alpha/beta" and that is it.
The customer is ENTITLED to a refund, no matter what any EULA says. No EULA can violate a consumers rights and stand up.
None of that other stuff you said, matters, in the face of that, so long as the customer "attempted to get a refund" to which he/she is entitled. And that could be a couple busy signals on the CS line. Again, because it is an "alpha/beta" product and thus not complete in the eyes of the law. That is enough.
If the customer were "nice" he could have tried harder to save SOE the chargeback fee, but he isn't really required to do that either.
Yeah, consumer rights are a terrible thing, right?
(And I have dealt with these issue a number of times in my RL job, and it is EXACTLY this way.)
IF and I am only saying IF you put significant play time into the game then they might have grounds for that, but given that they had committed publicly to honouring any refund request during Alpha (Im not sure if that extended to beta) then they would have grounds to contest it if you were filing it later than that, but also I find it odd that they went against their own well advertised policy. You might want to take that part up with them too.
Like I said, the mostly likely action is simply a sanction on the account, but don't be surprised if that charge-back gets reversed, they have a year window to contest it and if successful your bank will simply remove that money from your account to cover the fact they paid back the charge-back, your bank will also likely charge you for that.
I'm not trying to put anyone off any particular course of action, but the post was full of a lot of potentially damaging information and I wanted to set the record straight. Charge back abuse is also monitored professionally and services such as http://www.chargebackprotection.org/service.html are becoming more popular with companies, frequent flliers of charge backs will find their card simply declined by companies who use services like this.
Now as I said, in the majority of cases online service providers simply sanction the account and black list the credit card internally, but if there is a secondary industry for keeping tabs on chargeback abuse, you can guarantee legislation is coming, any privilege once misused can and will be either withdrawn or taxed, something to keep in mind.
Despite the good words, sir.
i must say, not really, because legally, they are now selling a product that is viable to change based on decision by the develepor, therefore you buy the "priviledge" to help "create" a game....lame, but true
edit: nothing, wanted to change it, but who cares, really
This is Consumer Protection Law? Where does one get a copy of this and what exact section is applicable in this case just in case I need it for court. Thanks in advance.
That might be what "they" say... and it might even be what the EULA says.
But the courts in several software and non-software related cases have said clearly, that a pre-release/prototype/not completed product is entitled to a refund.
It is a bright line, it is clear, it does not matter what the company says, only what the law says.
And yes, the company is fully within their rights to blackball the customer or CC number, in cases where they were "forced to give a refund" or a chargeback took place, but that does not mean the customer was i the wrong for doing so, in the eyes of the law.
Just because the companies keep selling alpha/beta products like a finished item, does not mean it is so.
No matter how many times they might say it.
In your case you likely could have gotten the discount. Most stores will match a sale price if you bought an item within 7 days before it went on sale. Some states even have a law similar to this.
I can't feel sorry for you, I just can't. You paid to test a game (which in and of itself speaks volumes not so much about you but how money hungry companies are) and you actually thought this wouldn't happen? If Collector's Editions go on sale for massive discounts, why would you expect anything in this case to be different? The only thing that was wrong were your false impressions.
You fell for a money grab pure and simple and SOE was not the first nor will they be the last to do this type of thing.
The Pre-release software clause in consumer protection laws only applies if the software has not been installed AND accessed and only for a limited period of time. Or for the standard cooling off period for non direct sales.
Again though, what you buy with the founders packs is the perks that come with it, not the software license its self (Which is provided upon launch) so again, the digital goods and services which were paid for have been supplied.
Consumer rights are a great thing when applied correctly, also class action waivers as is binding your self to agree to arbitration if a dispute outside of the terms of the agreement happens.
Again, chargebacks are a good thing, empowering people to protect them selves from actual fraud, but misuse of them will mean they are legislated more effectively in the future. I am not saying any case quoted here was or was not abuse, I am simply trying to provide my own knowledge (and yes I have worked in fraud preventative environments before too, but anyway, enough arm chair lawyering from me, like I said, good luck).
Here is the bit that matters from the FTC:
Federal Trade Commission Statement. In a phone call on 11 September 2008, a Federal Trade Commission representative stated the following, “I’m not aware of any Federal law stating that software can’t be returned. I’ve just searched my database and can’t find anything. I’ve never heard of it before.” [Source: Cindy, last name withheld for privacy] Documents available on the Federal Trade Commission website include the following statements regarding software returns.
so maybe you can agrre with me on this..
The lines are blurring, and laws old, no longer can we define a finished product, when we can agree that an mmo is never finished? im no lawman, but i think its along those lines the companies think, maybe.
If you initially bought in you had six months of play. In that time you could have been honing your building skills and created templates that have been selling on the marketplace for the last month or two making real money. If SoE had done this sale after a couple months I could see the rage but not six months after the fact.