It is like buying an Action movie and trying to take it back because it turned out to be a period romantic drama. Being informed is not just a responsiblity but also the onus is on the customer to be fully aware of what they are purchasing. In this case it looks like we see someone who never made the purchase, who was not informed and is now what? Trying to save face.
Is there no onus on the merchant? No consequence for acting irresponsibly? Does the customer have no recourse if it turns out the merchant has done a lot to obfuscate as much as possible the details and information the customer may need?
All you people who argue about the responsibilities of the customer are certain right, but what about the responsibilities of the merchant? Doesn't that exist for you? How badly does a company have to screw up? Many other industries and companies offer refunds to customers for no other reason than because the customer is unhappy. A customer wanting a refund for being unhappy with a product is not a moral failing.
Seems like you have got your feathers in a fluff.
Why is no one talking about specifics about where the "merchant" messed up here? As I said before there is only 1 issue I read back at start of thread that got shot down.
Do you really believe that I don't think there are resonsibilites on the business side, of course. Two way process.
Provide the goods.
" A customer wanting a refund for being unhappy with a product is not a moral failing." - could very well be their stupidity too.
The specifics have been well documented already. Also as I said, no other reason need be than the customer is unhappy.
Wow, already this many people want to leave and want a refund? Im hoping no one who wants money back for their star trek online purchase preordered champions online last year and then asked for a refund, at least I learned from that mistake.
What ever happened to people actually, you know, finding out what they're buying before they pay for something? There was ample opportunity to try the game before you bought. Now there are people trying to come up with lies and other ways to weasel out of their purchase? Whatever happened to morals and honesty?
I think the problem here is that people did read about the game and try it before certain features were introduced into the game that affect gameplay and the business model.
In short, it is people that paid for one thing, but got something else that seem to be concerned.
I highlighted comments from Emmert that said RMT items will be largely cosmetic. If they are not cosmetic, he said that they will be available through game play. This appears to convey the message that RMT is completely optional and will not affect your ability to play the game or compete.
Now, after lifetime subscriptions have been sold, it seems that Cryptic has announced that two playable races, with built-in kickass buffs that definitely affect gameplay, are available only at the RMT shop. It seems to me that this game is not delivering on what Jack told potential customers.
If the playable races were only cosmetic, this would not be a problem. If the playable races were available via gameplay, this would not be a problem. Since they're not merely cosmetic, and they're not available through gameplay (as far as I know), I think Cryptic may have a problem.
That is utter garbage. They did not remove the feature and you can indeed make your own species/race. In general though (re. the thread), given I've not been looking at this site for a while. Its good to see it hasn't changed. Troll and haters heaven, not matter the game. You guys are a joke, seriously.
However, it wasn't in in beta, so it was pretty much impossible to know, for those of us who got out as early as possible.
Actually, I was in closed beta since October...this feature was in there since the start...it did not change, and only new parts were added. The reason I know this is because my first character EVER made in STO was a custom species because I wanted to see just how far you could take the customization. You can't make a "Klingon" character within the Federation unless you pony up more money, but you can make a character that looks exactly like a Klingon if you so wish (just without the applicable stat bonuses / traits they get).
You're ability to try to twist everyone's arguments to advance your vendetta against Cryptic is appalling. Cryptic did indeed use "marketing speak" for most of their features...but they did meet those demands in most respects.
What ever happened to people actually, you know, finding out what they're buying before they pay for something? There was ample opportunity to try the game before you bought. Now there are people trying to come up with lies and other ways to weasel out of their purchase? Whatever happened to morals and honesty?
I think the problem here is that people did read about the game and try it before certain features were introduced into the game that affect gameplay and the business model.
In short, it is people that paid for one thing, but got something else that seem to be concerned.
I highlighted comments from Emmert that said RMT items will be largely cosmetic. If they are not cosmetic, he said that they will be available through game play. This appears to convey the message that RMT is completely optional and will not affect your ability to play the game or compete.
Now, after lifetime subscriptions have been sold, it seems that Cryptic has announced that two playable races, with built-in kickass buffs that definitely affect gameplay, are available only at the RMT shop. It seems to me that this game is not delivering on what Jack told potential customers.
If the playable races were only cosmetic, this would not be a problem. If the playable races were available via gameplay, this would not be a problem. Since they're not merely cosmetic, and they're not available through gameplay (as far as I know), I think Cryptic may have a problem.
I was a bit miffed about the races they offered, but the abilities they have really aren't what I'd classify as "kick-ass" . They are on par with abilities granted to specific player races at character creation.
I think the problem here is that people did read about the game and try it before certain features were introduced into the game that affect gameplay and the business model. In short, it is people that paid for one thing, but got something else that seem to be concerned. I highlighted comments from Emmert that said RMT items will be largely cosmetic. If they are not cosmetic, he said that they will be available through game play. This appears to convey the message that RMT is completely optional and will not affect your ability to play the game or compete. Now, after lifetime subscriptions have been sold, it seems that Cryptic has announced that two playable races, with built-in kickass buffs that definitely affect gameplay, are available only at the RMT shop. It seems to me that this game is not delivering on what Jack told potential customers. If the playable races were only cosmetic, this would not be a problem. If the playable races were available via gameplay, this would not be a problem. Since they're not merely cosmetic, and they're not available through gameplay (as far as I know), I think Cryptic may have a problem.
I respect your posts Arc they're usually well thought out and well intended. I understand no one likes to see what they view as shady business practices. I can't comment on the Ferengi(SP?) I've done zero research on them. However on the Klingon, as I understand it it's simply for the ability to play as a federation member. Are the buffs, much different than those you get as a Klingon faction member?
I do know each race has different buffs which vary in the form of skill and power. You also get a varying degree from different racial traits picked while creating an alien species. I'm sure some of those can be "kick ass" as well.
However if we're taking a stand on acts of morality here. We can't ignore the responsibility that is in our own hands. It's our own responsibility to know what we are buying. Going in Players knew there was a cash shop, we didn't know everything that was going to be on sale, we did know it was going to exist. What they chose to sell really is up to them, it's up to us to decide what we buy or not.
It's not exactly morally correct to take back money you spent, in a fraudulent manner. The company offered anyone interested a free period of play pre-launch, this throws out any notion they were hiding what they were selling. It was up to the buyer to be aware of this (you can't say they didn't put it out there). It was advertised every where you went. There's been countless interviews on everything from cash shops to overall content.
When the best example you can find that shows any hint of a counter statement, is a questionable one at best (the two races). There's not much of a case they fraudulently sold anything.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think the problem here is that people did read about the game and try it before certain features were introduced into the game that affect gameplay and the business model. In short, it is people that paid for one thing, but got something else that seem to be concerned. I highlighted comments from Emmert that said RMT items will be largely cosmetic. If they are not cosmetic, he said that they will be available through game play. This appears to convey the message that RMT is completely optional and will not affect your ability to play the game or compete. Now, after lifetime subscriptions have been sold, it seems that Cryptic has announced that two playable races, with built-in kickass buffs that definitely affect gameplay, are available only at the RMT shop. It seems to me that this game is not delivering on what Jack told potential customers. If the playable races were only cosmetic, this would not be a problem. If the playable races were available via gameplay, this would not be a problem. Since they're not merely cosmetic, and they're not available through gameplay (as far as I know), I think Cryptic may have a problem.
I respect your posts Arc they're usually well thought out and well intended. I understand no one likes to see what they view as shady business practices. I can't comment on the Ferengi(SP?) I've done zero research on them. However on the Klingon, as I understand it it's simply for the ability to play as a federation member. Are the buffs, much different than those you get as a Klingon faction member?
I do know each race has different buffs which vary in the form of skill and power. You also get a varying degree from different racial traits picked while creating an alien species. I'm sure some of those can be "kick ass" as well.
However if we're taking a stand on acts of morality here. We can't ignore the responsibility that is in our own hands. It's our own responsibility to know what we are buying. Going in Players knew there was a cash shop, we didn't know everything that was going to be on sale, we did know it was going to exist. What they chose to sell really is up to them, it's up to us to decide what we buy or not.
It's not exactly morally correct to take back money you spent, in a fraudulent manner. The company offered anyone interested a free period of play pre-launch, this throws out any notion they were hiding what they were selling. It was up to the buyer to be aware of this (you can't say they didn't put it out there). It was advertised every where you went. There's been countless interviews on everything from cash shops to overall content.
When the best example you can find that shows any hint of a counter statement, is a questionable one at best (the two races). There's not much of a case they fraudulently sold anything.
Hiya Malickie. Thanks for the response. If the races only offer cosmetic options, I don't see a problem. I think this is the key question, "Do the races affect gameplay?" If they do and are available in the cash shop only, I think the business model advertised is not the one that was implemented. Because the changes were implemented only after the game went live (correct me if I'm wrong), it would also be impossible to become aware of this prior to purchase. Timing is very important here I think. A lack of awareness in this case would not be the fault of the consumer, if this information was withheld. If the information was indeed withheld, and if this was done to boost initial sales, then this becomes even more problematic.
I was willing to purchase this game, only if RMT was completely optional (e.g. purely cosmetic, or if any buffs/bonuses could also be reasonably obtained through play). If I bought the game based on Emmert's comments, and then found that game-changing races were available at the cash shop only, I'd feel misled by the game's marketting. I'd be inclined to seek a refund.
Personally, I'd deal with Cryptic directly to begin with. If I wasn't satisfied, I would then explore other options; and there are many available to gamers these days, fortunately (e.g. BBB, FTC, Attorney General's office, free legal consultation etc.).
People should also be aware that many of the statements in MMO EULAs--about the game being "as is" and about people waiving consumer rights--are null and void in many jurisdictions. Third party arbitration, for example, must meet strict FTC criteria, or it is not binding, and you do not have to submit to it (see FTC website for details). The EULA itself probably indicates these limitations--friendly fyi for fellow gamers. Do some reading or get free consultation if you have any questions about these issues.
Many countries, and some states, now have strict consumer protection laws that apply to online games. Some games produced in the EU have EULAs that reflect these changes. Other companies seem to be lagging in terms of consumer-friendly practices. They'll probably lose business as a result, and may run afoul of the law.
Not spreading falsities or do I care where you pretend to work.
I had an issue with a fradulent charge from a web-site. I contacted my bank. They gave me the money back instantly while they were investigating it. I could use that money, it was in no state of limbo at any point. At some point along the investigation the website convinced the bank the charge was valid. The Bank then sided with the website and removed the money back from my account (was over a month later).
You are misinformed and think you know more then you do.
So to reiterate:
Most banks/CC companies will instantly give the money back while investigating. Later when the investigation is finished the bank/CC company can retake the money/recharge the account. The bank/CC company never has to tell you when it sided with the company or you. It also is not required to give you an explanation of why.
O.K. --- a lot of misinformation about this subject.
Here is a link to the what the Attorney General for California has to say on the subject:
While it might vary a bit depending on where you live... the gist is this:
There are two categories recognized by federal and state law under which you can resist payment, and these are known as "billing errors" and "claims and defenses".
The types of "billing errors" include: (3) Charges for goods or services different from what was represented...
If you get your letter challenging the charge to your bank within the 60 day period , you need not meet any other condition.
You need not make any attempt to resolve the dispute with the merchant, and you can assert a billing error even if you have already paid your credit card balance down to zero.
If the claim is determined by the card issuing bank to be valid, it will issue a credit to your account for the amount claimed.
If the card issuing bank finds your claim to be invalid, you may wish to contact your own bank to see if they will help.
In the event your bank denies your request and you believe that you have satisfied all of the required conditions, you can file or make a complaint with the Attorney General's Office website.
Clearly in favor of the customer. It's really in the interest of a merchant to make sure the customer is satisfied and happy.
Here is also a link to MasterCard's merchant policy regarding charge-backs and other policies... it's 542 pages:
The charge-back feature is indeed a viable feature that customers have to get their money back if they are displeased with the merchandise. The bank may indeed deem the charge-back invalid... then the charge still applies. The merchant may indeed re-issue the fee... which in turn can be disputed once again.
The only way a customer is going to get a "black mark" on their credit rating is if they repeatedly abuse the charge-back feature. It is there for the precise reason of a customer feeling that they received a product that was not what they were expecting. Merchants that accept CC's know this and willingly accept the policies that go with them.
From the perspective of the merchant trying to avoid charge-backs this site advertising their product was an interesting read:
Merchants are assumed to be in the wrong whenever a customer requests a chargeback.
Chargebacks are a potentially devastating force for any online merchant and must be treated seriously.
Chargebacks definitely are not fair to the merchant who has acted out of good faith. However, the power generally lies with the customer.
Hopefully those sites above should give everyone who wants it the informaiton they need to determine the truth about charge-backs.
Thank you, finally some cited truth on the matter.
Also, it seems that SnarlingWolf's story was completely made up after all. Fraudulent charges always favour the card-holder, as I've been saying the entire time.
Yeah, any research on the subject shows:
The customer is fully within their rights to request a charge-back if they are dissatisfied with a product.
The CC banks over-whelmingly favor the customer over the merchant
The merchant must comply with necesarry documentation, and even then may still loose the charge-back.
The customer at worst ends up paying the amount they did originally.
Does the above get taken advantage of by unscrupulous customers?... Probably.
Are merchants at a disadvantage when it comes to CC's and charge-backs?... Definitely.
All the more reason for merchants to make sure they are doing everything they can to keep as many customers as possible happy and gain a good reputation for themselves with their customers.
Like it or not, this is the environment that merchants must deal with when dealing with CC's and customers.
My main reason for poking around in this thread was to help dispell mis-information. Hopefully some of the links above might help in that regards.
I appreciate the links, but I don't really see a discredit to anything that was said. As stated in my last dispute they told me that if the investigation comes out in favor of the company I would still be responsible for the charge. They charged back the money immediately to my account. Had they come back in their investigation and found that I was viable for the charge, it would show back up. I have not seen it back yet, but the CSR told me it was a possibility over the phone. Thats not against the law, and both the credit card and account was from chase. This means that if under investigation of the charge, there is a possibility that you will not receive your money back. Thats all I was saying.
I guess what I am having a hard time wrapping my head around is this.
You pay a couple hundred bucks for a lifetime sub on a game you have never played from a company known to be shady and release crappy products. Then act butt hurt when the game releases with a shady item mall inside of a crappy game.
Then expect a refund from said company for releasing a product that the entire freakin world knew was gonna be half assed?
Sorry if I dont have any sympathy for you.
I honestly hope they do no give refunds. Around where I am from we would call that stupid tax. Next time you might think twice before spending that money.
I appreciate the links, but I don't really see a discredit to anything that was said. As stated in my last dispute they told me that if the investigation comes out in favor of the company I would still be responsible for the charge. They charged back the money immediately to my account. Had they come back in their investigation and found that I was viable for the charge, it would show back up. I have not seen it back yet, but the CSR told me it was a possibility over the phone. Thats not against the law, and both the credit card and account was from chase. This means that if under investigation of the charge, there is a possibility that you will not receive your money back. Thats all I was saying.
Did you read what he posted or are you changing the meaning of what you posted?
Not spreading falsities or do I care where you pretend to work.
I had an issue with a fradulent charge from a web-site. I contacted my bank. They gave me the money back instantly while they were investigating it. I could use that money, it was in no state of limbo at any point. At some point along the investigation the website convinced the bank the charge was valid. The Bank then sided with the website and removed the money back from my account (was over a month later).
You are misinformed and think you know more then you do.
So to reiterate:
Most banks/CC companies will instantly give the money back while investigating. Later when the investigation is finished the bank/CC company can retake the money/recharge the account. The bank/CC company never has to tell you when it sided with the company or you. It also is not required to give you an explanation of why.
O.K. --- a lot of misinformation about this subject.
Here is a link to the what the Attorney General for California has to say on the subject:
While it might vary a bit depending on where you live... the gist is this:
There are two categories recognized by federal and state law under which you can resist payment, and these are known as "billing errors" and "claims and defenses".
The types of "billing errors" include: (3) Charges for goods or services different from what was represented...
If you get your letter challenging the charge to your bank within the 60 day period , you need not meet any other condition.
You need not make any attempt to resolve the dispute with the merchant, and you can assert a billing error even if you have already paid your credit card balance down to zero.
If the claim is determined by the card issuing bank to be valid, it will issue a credit to your account for the amount claimed.
If the card issuing bank finds your claim to be invalid, you may wish to contact your own bank to see if they will help.
In the event your bank denies your request and you believe that you have satisfied all of the required conditions, you can file or make a complaint with the Attorney General's Office website.
Clearly in favor of the customer. It's really in the interest of a merchant to make sure the customer is satisfied and happy.
Here is also a link to MasterCard's merchant policy regarding charge-backs and other policies... it's 542 pages:
The charge-back feature is indeed a viable feature that customers have to get their money back if they are displeased with the merchandise. The bank may indeed deem the charge-back invalid... then the charge still applies. The merchant may indeed re-issue the fee... which in turn can be disputed once again.
The only way a customer is going to get a "black mark" on their credit rating is if they repeatedly abuse the charge-back feature. It is there for the precise reason of a customer feeling that they received a product that was not what they were expecting. Merchants that accept CC's know this and willingly accept the policies that go with them.
From the perspective of the merchant trying to avoid charge-backs this site advertising their product was an interesting read:
Merchants are assumed to be in the wrong whenever a customer requests a chargeback.
Chargebacks are a potentially devastating force for any online merchant and must be treated seriously.
Chargebacks definitely are not fair to the merchant who has acted out of good faith. However, the power generally lies with the customer.
Hopefully those sites above should give everyone who wants it the informaiton they need to determine the truth about charge-backs.
Thank you, finally some cited truth on the matter.
Also, it seems that SnarlingWolf's story was completely made up after all. Fraudulent charges always favour the card-holder, as I've been saying the entire time.
Yeah, any research on the subject shows:
The customer is fully within their rights to request a charge-back if they are dissatisfied with a product.
The CC banks over-whelmingly favor the customer over the merchant
The merchant must comply with necesarry documentation, and even then may still loose the charge-back.
The customer at worst ends up paying the amount they did originally.
Does the above get taken advantage of by unscrupulous customers?... Probably.
Are merchants at a disadvantage when it comes to CC's and charge-backs?... Definitely.
All the more reason for merchants to make sure they are doing everything they can to keep as many customers as possible happy and gain a good reputation for themselves with their customers.
Like it or not, this is the environment that merchants must deal with when dealing with CC's and customers.
My main reason for poking around in this thread was to help dispell mis-information. Hopefully some of the links above might help in that regards.
I appreciate the links, but I don't really see a discredit to anything that was said. As stated in my last dispute they told me that if the investigation comes out in favor of the company I would still be responsible for the charge. They charged back the money immediately to my account. Had they come back in their investigation and found that I was viable for the charge, it would show back up. I have not seen it back yet, but the CSR told me it was a possibility over the phone. Thats not against the law, and both the credit card and account was from chase. This means that if under investigation of the charge, there is a possibility that you will not receive your money back. Thats all I was saying.
Wait, are you SnarlingWolf now? It was SnarlingWolf who originally posted that.
He said: "I had an issue with a fradulent charge from a web-site."
If you'll read the links again, fraudulent charges are always, always decided in favour of the card hold. Always. This falls under "billing errors." This is by law and by the credit card company's own policies.
Also, chargebacks are almost always ruled in favour of the customer. Your post and the post you are defending reads like pure fiction because this is simply not how things work.
Wait, are you SnarlingWolf now? It was SnarlingWolf who originally posted that. He said: "I had an issue with a fradulent charge from a web-site." If you'll read the links again, fraudulent charges are always, always decided in favour of the card hold. Always. This falls under "billing errors." This is by law and by the credit card company's own policies. Also, chargebacks are almost always ruled in favour of the customer. Your post and the post you are defending reads like pure fiction because this is simply not how things work.
A couple of things I want to point out which may have been pointed out before but there is a lot of noise in this thread.
Didn't you, the OP, playthe beta at all? If you had played the beta then you should have known what you were getting unless you were lured by promises in which case a handful of weeks is not long enough for even competent companies to make good on promises.
Whoever said chargebacks affect your credit score just doesn't know what they are talking about. Your credit worthiness has nothing to do with whether you exercise your right to request a chargeback (and it is a right all the credit cards give you)
There is still a risk even if the chargeback is successful in that Cryptic could blacklist you basically for life, locking your credit card, account, whatever from being able to use their services or buy their products.
Whoever suggested contacting them to resolve "the issue" either has unusual customer service experience from MMO companies or just hasn't done the process. Most of them are pretty bad and slow and there is little chance that calling up Cryptic saying hey, your game isn't as advertised I want my money back is going to work. Show me an MMO and I will show you a product that isn't as advertised. This is standard practice for them now because we, as consumers, let them and have let them do it.
On a side note, I am curious as to what exactly they removed from the species creator?
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
A couple of things I want to point out which may have been pointed out before but there is a lot of noise in this thread.
Didn't you, the OP, playthe beta at all? If you had played the beta then you should have known what you were getting unless you were lured by promises in which case a handful of weeks is not long enough for even competent companies to make good on promises. Whoever said chargebacks affect your credit score just doesn't know what they are talking about. Your credit worthiness has nothing to do with whether you exercise your right to request a chargeback (and it is a right all the credit cards give you) There is still a risk even if the chargeback is successful in that Cryptic could blacklist you basically for life, locking your credit card, account, whatever from being able to use their services or buy their products. Whoever suggested contacting them to resolve "the issue" either has unusual customer service experience from MMO companies or just hasn't done the process. Most of them are pretty bad and slow and there is little chance that calling up Cryptic saying hey, your game isn't as advertised I want my money back is going to work. Show me an MMO and I will show you a product that isn't as advertised. This is standard practice for them now because we, as consumers, let them and have let them do it.
On a side note, I am curious as to what exactly they removed from the species creator?
They removed klingon and ferengi bodyparts, supposedly due to "graphical glitches" and then have put them back in again as a cash shop item.
I have no information on whether or not STO is producing false information, providing you a way to cancel but I can say I have done this in the past for LOTRO.
I almost bought into their cheap promotion to obtain the expansion pack of Mirkwood untill after signing up I seen the other part of the expansion pack was sold seperately as an "adventure pack". I called Turbine and let me them now I wanted a refund due to misleading advertisements. They refunded my money.
They removed klingon and ferengi bodyparts, supposedly due to "graphical glitches" and then have put them back in again as a cash shop item. So, yeah...
If that is the reason they gave and then they only show up now in the cash shop now, I would say that's pretty sleezy.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
A friend of mine just did a chargeback through his credit card on the game because of all the gameplay issues he's been having and horrible customer service. As an fyi, the "as is" claim in an MMO EULA is not valid in many states. Here's a quote from the Federal Trade Commission that explains this:
"Some states do not allow you to sell consumer products "as is." At this time, these states are Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. In those states, sellers have implied warranty obligations that cannot be avoided."
The company can bite you back occasionally if the interpretation of the features was within reason. Say you insisted you couldn't do something yet you could, just only to a extent. As long as they can argue its part true they win. In which case your hit with the false charge fee lol.
I'll pull up an example of a falsity on the page:
"Your ship will retain a Star Trek "feel," but it will also represent your style. What’s more, anyone can create their own species in Star Trek Online, meaning you can tell your own story about how you came to be in the galaxy. Leave your mark on the Star Trek universe!"
You cannot create your own species, at all. This is a feature that was removed to allow Cryptic to nickel and dime players.
Wow, I didn't realize that. Did they actually take out the custom alien race feature? That more or less kills the character creation aspect, if it's true and accurate.
The custom race feature is still in, however they removed certain pieces from the creator so that you'd have to buy the races made out of those pieces.
Not quite true either. They removed some Ferengi parts (in closed beta) that weren't meshing well with the custom layout and they do charge $1 to play Ferengi.
ALL Klingon parts are still a part of the custom Alien option. People who pay $3 to play a Starfleet Klingon are paying to get access to the Klingon racials (which aren't as good as the custom alien options for minmaxing) and the name "Klingon" instead of "Alien" when someone inspects you. You can even get the equivalent of the Klingon racials with a combination of traits but it would make you more ground combat focused. It's essentially for OCD RPers. There's some talk that "real" Klingons may be allowed to wear sashes like Worf but nothing confirmed by developers.
It would be the same thing if Blizzard charged $3 to play a "Ranger" class and gave you a hunter with no pet taming abilities and slightly upped damage/survivability to compensate. Not as good as the Hunter you could make for free but slightly better for somebody who was going to roll a Hunter with no pet "for roleplay reasons" anyway.
Also, I've heard that Cryptic is quietly issuing refunds for purchases made through them in cases where people are polite and willing to stay on hold for awhile. They aren't going to publicize it because they don't want everyone doing it and because their approach seems to be to issue a form rejection to anyone who screams at them.
They currently have tens of thousands of tickets they're processing but I have yet to hear of anybody who was denied a refund unless they blew up at the service rep, although it does take an hour to get through to a rep. The odds will go down with time that they will honor refunds.
You can't get a refund from Cryptic for something you bought from Amazon, naturally. But I've heard they've been very forgiving of lifetime refunds and year subscription refunds during the grace period, which just ended, and that they're generally forgiving within the first 30 days, although they obviously won't make promises unless the law requires it.
Your mentality is different, but, it doesn't make the OP wrong in any shape or form.
If he doesn't feel he got the value for his money, why should he just accept the product? If Cryptic is not willing to give any unsatified customer they're money back, then that customer has the right to go to there card holder and say "this isn't what I wanted".
Just like any other business based mostly on accepting the terms & conditions of credit cards.
See, when I went over this same thing about Mortal Online, everyone said, OH it was in beta, it wasn't released, etc. etc. and you know what? they had a point, the game wasn't released, they just made a bad decision, but the developers were too stupid to cover their ass or be responsible. Now heres a released game, stable, with most people having box in hand, or special items in game already or whatever, and they don't like it so they want their money back. I stand firm on the fact that this is ridiculously childish. I just disputed something on my credit card yesterday, and going through the dispute reasons with the credit card company "I didn't like it" wasn't one of the choices I was able to choose for dispute.
Thats all this ends up being, and if you had any sense at all, you wouldn't buy the game on release if you were going to just turn tail and give up because its not to your liking. Going through the credit card company is also extremely cowardly. Most of the time, and even cryptic has in the past, had their customer support refund charges based on customer dissatisfaction. If you spoke with them and told them you were considering disputing the charge due to false advertising, they would've probably given your money back as they did for players of champions online.
Instead you go straight to the credit card company, and I honestly hope cryptic disputes those charges.
My roommate once bought a video game that we had been waiting years for. We greatly enjoyed the last game of the series, and we were waiting for this game with baited breath. He bought the game on release day, it cost him $65 or so. He brought it home where we all crowded around his computer as he installed it and booted that game up for the first time.
And it turned out that that game, Master of Orion 4, was utter and complete crap. My roommate was pretty much heart-broken. He played the game for about 45 minutes, trying to see if it got any better, but it was just a bad game through and through.
Are you saying he didn't deserve his money back? He was thoroughly unsatisfied with his purchase to the point of bitter disappointment. Why shouldn't he have been allowed to return that game? Should the company keep his money for a video game he didn't enjoy or even keep playing?
Because you have no right to satisfaction in entertainment. You pay for the chance that you might be entertained. If the movie theater/store/whatever gives you a refund, they do it as a customer courtesy. And I think it's great if they do but I never felt entitled to get $8.50 back for a movie that sucked and I think the people who make an inferior movie (or game) get punished enough because I don't spend more or encourage other people to spend more on it.
On one hand there is this really shitty game company launching their really shitty game and charging you with money you pay for any other good game out there, I can see why the customer thinks he is scammed.
On the other hand a question to the customer: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING, MAN??? This game was free to play during the open beta, the player's reviews (most of them) made it clear that this game is not worth the money you pay for it. You made a thoughtless move and now you regret it.
THEN again if he missed the beta for some reason and he is a huge star trek fan I see why he wanted to try the game, hoping it to be the best thing ever happened to him.
Personally I think its wrong for game companies to not let you try the product you're about to buy, basicly because if you're buying a car you can always test drive it and see if its the thing you want, I dont see why games is any different from this, they give free trial to almost any old game out there (WoW, EVE etc) why not new ones??? Oh right, that way they can't force you into buying some candy covered in dog poo. Thats just wrong, so when I'm finishing this post I'm siding more with the customer here.
Bottom line is - make a good game and you won't have to face problems like unhappy customers doing chargebacks!
Now let's look at the playable races available at the RMT shop: Ferengi: "These Captains begin with the Natural Immunities (40% resistance to Toxic Damage, 40% resistance to Radiation Damage) and Acute Senses (20% improvement to Stealth Sight, 10% bonus to Exploit Damage) traits. They may choose two additional traits." Klingon: "These Captains begin with the Warrior (5% improvement to Ranged Weapon Damage, 10% percent improvement to Physical Melee Damage, 10% improvement to Critical Severity) and Honorable (5% resistance to all damage, 10% improvement to Threat Rating) traits. They may choose two additional traits."
1) Natural Immunities and Acute Senses are available as options for the "Alien" custom race, meaning your only paying to have your head look like a butt.
2) Warrior and Honorable are somewhat more of a grey area in that they are Klingon specific (though Alien offers nearly identical abilities with slighly lower bonus percentages), but means these abilities are technically aquirable in game... your not paying to play a Klingon, you can already do that, your paying to play a Klingon in a diffrent faction. How you view this depends on how you want to nitpick. For my part since no other mainstream MMO with factional PvP that I can think of has any mechnism for cross-faction racial play, personally I don't see this as unfair... and based on the fact of the situation I would view using this as the basis of a fraud case... as fraud... particularly since I very much doubt that anyone who is now launching a charge dispute through their credit card company is doing so because they have to pay for use of Warrior and Honorable on the Federation side. In fact I'm relatively sure that anyone who buy Federation Klingon, bought them for purely cosmetic reasons, not because they JUST HAD to have Warrior and Honorable on the Federation side for gameplay reasons.
Right. The thing is, with Alien custom traits, you can get ranged, melee, crit, threat and resistance bonuses equal to that and then some. You'll just be tying up four traits in ground racials. That's why I didn't go into specifics.
In the end, it's more gimped than a well customized Alien in both cases. You can make a PERFECT Klingon in the creator. You're just paying for the word "Klingon" and the racials which offers passive stats you can get through other means (Soldier, Physical Strength and a couple others).
It's like paying Blizzard for a petless hunter that gets the "Ranger" name or paying to play a "Soldier" that's just an Arms warrior without the other two trees. It's an RP perk and not even a particularly cosmetic one.
Ferengi parts were removed in Closed Beta because they weren't modular enough to work with the custom alien option.
I mean, you might as well argue that Blizzard removing Blood Elf Warriors in TBC Beta and then offering them again in Cataclysm is the same thing, "charging you for content that was a part of beta".
It would be like Blizzard charging $3 to play a Dwarf Mage. They offered those in Vanilla WoW Beta too but it doesn't necessarily have a lot of synergy with the racials. (Treasure Hunter being better for rogues and gun spec being for people who use guns and the mining bonus being better for classes that can mine.) It's really like saying, "This is gimped but you really want that text next to your name, knock yourself out."
A couple of things I want to point out which may have been pointed out before but there is a lot of noise in this thread.
Didn't you, the OP, playthe beta at all? If you had played the beta then you should have known what you were getting unless you were lured by promises in which case a handful of weeks is not long enough for even competent companies to make good on promises. Whoever said chargebacks affect your credit score just doesn't know what they are talking about. Your credit worthiness has nothing to do with whether you exercise your right to request a chargeback (and it is a right all the credit cards give you) There is still a risk even if the chargeback is successful in that Cryptic could blacklist you basically for life, locking your credit card, account, whatever from being able to use their services or buy their products. Whoever suggested contacting them to resolve "the issue" either has unusual customer service experience from MMO companies or just hasn't done the process. Most of them are pretty bad and slow and there is little chance that calling up Cryptic saying hey, your game isn't as advertised I want my money back is going to work. Show me an MMO and I will show you a product that isn't as advertised. This is standard practice for them now because we, as consumers, let them and have let them do it.
On a side note, I am curious as to what exactly they removed from the species creator?
They removed klingon and ferengi bodyparts, supposedly due to "graphical glitches" and then have put them back in again as a cash shop item.
So, yeah...
Again, there were graphical issues with the Ferengi bodyparts and they never removed the Klingon parts. They were still there two hours ago when I checked, a week after paid Klingons were added to the store.
Your mentality is different, but, it doesn't make the OP wrong in any shape or form.
If he doesn't feel he got the value for his money, why should he just accept the product? If Cryptic is not willing to give any unsatified customer they're money back, then that customer has the right to go to there card holder and say "this isn't what I wanted".
Just like any other business based mostly on accepting the terms & conditions of credit cards.
See, when I went over this same thing about Mortal Online, everyone said, OH it was in beta, it wasn't released, etc. etc. and you know what? they had a point, the game wasn't released, they just made a bad decision, but the developers were too stupid to cover their ass or be responsible. Now heres a released game, stable, with most people having box in hand, or special items in game already or whatever, and they don't like it so they want their money back. I stand firm on the fact that this is ridiculously childish. I just disputed something on my credit card yesterday, and going through the dispute reasons with the credit card company "I didn't like it" wasn't one of the choices I was able to choose for dispute.
Thats all this ends up being, and if you had any sense at all, you wouldn't buy the game on release if you were going to just turn tail and give up because its not to your liking. Going through the credit card company is also extremely cowardly. Most of the time, and even cryptic has in the past, had their customer support refund charges based on customer dissatisfaction. If you spoke with them and told them you were considering disputing the charge due to false advertising, they would've probably given your money back as they did for players of champions online.
Instead you go straight to the credit card company, and I honestly hope cryptic disputes those charges.
My roommate once bought a video game that we had been waiting years for. We greatly enjoyed the last game of the series, and we were waiting for this game with baited breath. He bought the game on release day, it cost him $65 or so. He brought it home where we all crowded around his computer as he installed it and booted that game up for the first time.
And it turned out that that game, Master of Orion 4, was utter and complete crap. My roommate was pretty much heart-broken. He played the game for about 45 minutes, trying to see if it got any better, but it was just a bad game through and through.
Are you saying he didn't deserve his money back? He was thoroughly unsatisfied with his purchase to the point of bitter disappointment. Why shouldn't he have been allowed to return that game? Should the company keep his money for a video game he didn't enjoy or even keep playing?
Because you have no right to satisfaction in entertainment. You pay for the chance that you might be entertained. If the movie theater/store/whatever gives you a refund, they do it as a customer courtesy. And I think it's great if they do but I never felt entitled to get $8.50 back for a movie that sucked and I think the people who make an inferior movie (or game) get punished enough because I don't spend more or encourage other people to spend more on it.
If I walked out of a movie that really sucked, I would most certainly ask for my money back, and I'd hope the movie theater would refund it. Go see a movie in the first week when the production companies get the majority of ticket sales, that way if you have to walk out on a movie you'll be punishing the creators of trash movies and not the local cinema.
Also, I've heard that Cryptic is quietly issuing refunds for purchases made through them in cases where people are polite and willing to stay on hold for awhile. They aren't going to publicize it because they don't want everyone doing it and because their approach seems to be to issue a form rejection to anyone who screams at them.
They currently have tens of thousands of tickets they're processing but I have yet to hear of anybody who was denied a refund unless they blew up at the service rep, although it does take an hour to get through to a rep. The odds will go down with time that they will honor refunds.
You can't get a refund from Cryptic for something you bought from Amazon, naturally. But I've heard they've been very forgiving of lifetime refunds and year subscription refunds during the grace period, which just ended, and that they're generally forgiving within the first 30 days, although they obviously won't make promises unless the law requires it.
This really wouldn't surprise me at all. My past experience with Cryptic was positive in terms of customer support. I played CoH before they left their partnership with NCsoft.
I think they realize that some problems exist with this game in terms of bugs and an apparent discrepancy between the way RMT was marketted versus how it was implemented. In many states the "as is" clause in the EULA is simply not applicable by law, and it's always a problem to say one thing in your pre-release marketting and then turn around and do the opposite after you accept payment.
Comments
Is there no onus on the merchant? No consequence for acting irresponsibly? Does the customer have no recourse if it turns out the merchant has done a lot to obfuscate as much as possible the details and information the customer may need?
All you people who argue about the responsibilities of the customer are certain right, but what about the responsibilities of the merchant? Doesn't that exist for you? How badly does a company have to screw up? Many other industries and companies offer refunds to customers for no other reason than because the customer is unhappy. A customer wanting a refund for being unhappy with a product is not a moral failing.
Seems like you have got your feathers in a fluff.
Why is no one talking about specifics about where the "merchant" messed up here? As I said before there is only 1 issue I read back at start of thread that got shot down.
Do you really believe that I don't think there are resonsibilites on the business side, of course. Two way process.
Provide the goods.
" A customer wanting a refund for being unhappy with a product is not a moral failing." - could very well be their stupidity too.
The specifics have been well documented already. Also as I said, no other reason need be than the customer is unhappy.
Wow, already this many people want to leave and want a refund? Im hoping no one who wants money back for their star trek online purchase preordered champions online last year and then asked for a refund, at least I learned from that mistake.
I think the problem here is that people did read about the game and try it before certain features were introduced into the game that affect gameplay and the business model.
In short, it is people that paid for one thing, but got something else that seem to be concerned.
I highlighted comments from Emmert that said RMT items will be largely cosmetic. If they are not cosmetic, he said that they will be available through game play. This appears to convey the message that RMT is completely optional and will not affect your ability to play the game or compete.
Now, after lifetime subscriptions have been sold, it seems that Cryptic has announced that two playable races, with built-in kickass buffs that definitely affect gameplay, are available only at the RMT shop. It seems to me that this game is not delivering on what Jack told potential customers.
If the playable races were only cosmetic, this would not be a problem. If the playable races were available via gameplay, this would not be a problem. Since they're not merely cosmetic, and they're not available through gameplay (as far as I know), I think Cryptic may have a problem.
However, it wasn't in in beta, so it was pretty much impossible to know, for those of us who got out as early as possible.
Actually, I was in closed beta since October...this feature was in there since the start...it did not change, and only new parts were added. The reason I know this is because my first character EVER made in STO was a custom species because I wanted to see just how far you could take the customization. You can't make a "Klingon" character within the Federation unless you pony up more money, but you can make a character that looks exactly like a Klingon if you so wish (just without the applicable stat bonuses / traits they get).
You're ability to try to twist everyone's arguments to advance your vendetta against Cryptic is appalling. Cryptic did indeed use "marketing speak" for most of their features...but they did meet those demands in most respects.
I think the problem here is that people did read about the game and try it before certain features were introduced into the game that affect gameplay and the business model.
In short, it is people that paid for one thing, but got something else that seem to be concerned.
I highlighted comments from Emmert that said RMT items will be largely cosmetic. If they are not cosmetic, he said that they will be available through game play. This appears to convey the message that RMT is completely optional and will not affect your ability to play the game or compete.
Now, after lifetime subscriptions have been sold, it seems that Cryptic has announced that two playable races, with built-in kickass buffs that definitely affect gameplay, are available only at the RMT shop. It seems to me that this game is not delivering on what Jack told potential customers.
If the playable races were only cosmetic, this would not be a problem. If the playable races were available via gameplay, this would not be a problem. Since they're not merely cosmetic, and they're not available through gameplay (as far as I know), I think Cryptic may have a problem.
I was a bit miffed about the races they offered, but the abilities they have really aren't what I'd classify as "kick-ass" . They are on par with abilities granted to specific player races at character creation.
I respect your posts Arc they're usually well thought out and well intended. I understand no one likes to see what they view as shady business practices. I can't comment on the Ferengi(SP?) I've done zero research on them. However on the Klingon, as I understand it it's simply for the ability to play as a federation member. Are the buffs, much different than those you get as a Klingon faction member?
I do know each race has different buffs which vary in the form of skill and power. You also get a varying degree from different racial traits picked while creating an alien species. I'm sure some of those can be "kick ass" as well.
However if we're taking a stand on acts of morality here. We can't ignore the responsibility that is in our own hands. It's our own responsibility to know what we are buying. Going in Players knew there was a cash shop, we didn't know everything that was going to be on sale, we did know it was going to exist. What they chose to sell really is up to them, it's up to us to decide what we buy or not.
It's not exactly morally correct to take back money you spent, in a fraudulent manner. The company offered anyone interested a free period of play pre-launch, this throws out any notion they were hiding what they were selling. It was up to the buyer to be aware of this (you can't say they didn't put it out there). It was advertised every where you went. There's been countless interviews on everything from cash shops to overall content.
When the best example you can find that shows any hint of a counter statement, is a questionable one at best (the two races). There's not much of a case they fraudulently sold anything.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I respect your posts Arc they're usually well thought out and well intended. I understand no one likes to see what they view as shady business practices. I can't comment on the Ferengi(SP?) I've done zero research on them. However on the Klingon, as I understand it it's simply for the ability to play as a federation member. Are the buffs, much different than those you get as a Klingon faction member?
I do know each race has different buffs which vary in the form of skill and power. You also get a varying degree from different racial traits picked while creating an alien species. I'm sure some of those can be "kick ass" as well.
However if we're taking a stand on acts of morality here. We can't ignore the responsibility that is in our own hands. It's our own responsibility to know what we are buying. Going in Players knew there was a cash shop, we didn't know everything that was going to be on sale, we did know it was going to exist. What they chose to sell really is up to them, it's up to us to decide what we buy or not.
It's not exactly morally correct to take back money you spent, in a fraudulent manner. The company offered anyone interested a free period of play pre-launch, this throws out any notion they were hiding what they were selling. It was up to the buyer to be aware of this (you can't say they didn't put it out there). It was advertised every where you went. There's been countless interviews on everything from cash shops to overall content.
When the best example you can find that shows any hint of a counter statement, is a questionable one at best (the two races). There's not much of a case they fraudulently sold anything.
Hiya Malickie. Thanks for the response. If the races only offer cosmetic options, I don't see a problem. I think this is the key question, "Do the races affect gameplay?" If they do and are available in the cash shop only, I think the business model advertised is not the one that was implemented. Because the changes were implemented only after the game went live (correct me if I'm wrong), it would also be impossible to become aware of this prior to purchase. Timing is very important here I think. A lack of awareness in this case would not be the fault of the consumer, if this information was withheld. If the information was indeed withheld, and if this was done to boost initial sales, then this becomes even more problematic.
I was willing to purchase this game, only if RMT was completely optional (e.g. purely cosmetic, or if any buffs/bonuses could also be reasonably obtained through play). If I bought the game based on Emmert's comments, and then found that game-changing races were available at the cash shop only, I'd feel misled by the game's marketting. I'd be inclined to seek a refund.
Personally, I'd deal with Cryptic directly to begin with. If I wasn't satisfied, I would then explore other options; and there are many available to gamers these days, fortunately (e.g. BBB, FTC, Attorney General's office, free legal consultation etc.).
People should also be aware that many of the statements in MMO EULAs--about the game being "as is" and about people waiving consumer rights--are null and void in many jurisdictions. Third party arbitration, for example, must meet strict FTC criteria, or it is not binding, and you do not have to submit to it (see FTC website for details). The EULA itself probably indicates these limitations--friendly fyi for fellow gamers. Do some reading or get free consultation if you have any questions about these issues.
Many countries, and some states, now have strict consumer protection laws that apply to online games. Some games produced in the EU have EULAs that reflect these changes. Other companies seem to be lagging in terms of consumer-friendly practices. They'll probably lose business as a result, and may run afoul of the law.
O.K. --- a lot of misinformation about this subject.
Here is a link to the what the Attorney General for California has to say on the subject:
ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/credit_card_chargeback_rights.php
While it might vary a bit depending on where you live... the gist is this:
Clearly in favor of the customer. It's really in the interest of a merchant to make sure the customer is satisfied and happy.
Here is also a link to MasterCard's merchant policy regarding charge-backs and other policies... it's 542 pages:
www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/TB_CB_Manual.pdf
Here is a link to Visa's merchant policy regarding charge-backs... it's 151 pages:
usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card_acceptance_guide.pdf
The charge-back feature is indeed a viable feature that customers have to get their money back if they are displeased with the merchandise. The bank may indeed deem the charge-back invalid... then the charge still applies. The merchant may indeed re-issue the fee... which in turn can be disputed once again.
The only way a customer is going to get a "black mark" on their credit rating is if they repeatedly abuse the charge-back feature. It is there for the precise reason of a customer feeling that they received a product that was not what they were expecting. Merchants that accept CC's know this and willingly accept the policies that go with them.
From the perspective of the merchant trying to avoid charge-backs this site advertising their product was an interesting read:
www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/79598218-how-to-beat-chargebacks
A couple quotes from the site above:
Hopefully those sites above should give everyone who wants it the informaiton they need to determine the truth about charge-backs.
Thank you, finally some cited truth on the matter.
Also, it seems that SnarlingWolf's story was completely made up after all. Fraudulent charges always favour the card-holder, as I've been saying the entire time.
Yeah, any research on the subject shows:
Does the above get taken advantage of by unscrupulous customers?... Probably.
Are merchants at a disadvantage when it comes to CC's and charge-backs?... Definitely.
All the more reason for merchants to make sure they are doing everything they can to keep as many customers as possible happy and gain a good reputation for themselves with their customers.
Like it or not, this is the environment that merchants must deal with when dealing with CC's and customers.
My main reason for poking around in this thread was to help dispell mis-information. Hopefully some of the links above might help in that regards.
I appreciate the links, but I don't really see a discredit to anything that was said. As stated in my last dispute they told me that if the investigation comes out in favor of the company I would still be responsible for the charge. They charged back the money immediately to my account. Had they come back in their investigation and found that I was viable for the charge, it would show back up. I have not seen it back yet, but the CSR told me it was a possibility over the phone. Thats not against the law, and both the credit card and account was from chase. This means that if under investigation of the charge, there is a possibility that you will not receive your money back. Thats all I was saying.
I guess what I am having a hard time wrapping my head around is this.
You pay a couple hundred bucks for a lifetime sub on a game you have never played from a company known to be shady and release crappy products. Then act butt hurt when the game releases with a shady item mall inside of a crappy game.
Then expect a refund from said company for releasing a product that the entire freakin world knew was gonna be half assed?
Sorry if I dont have any sympathy for you.
I honestly hope they do no give refunds. Around where I am from we would call that stupid tax. Next time you might think twice before spending that money.
Did you read what he posted or are you changing the meaning of what you posted?
O.K. --- a lot of misinformation about this subject.
Here is a link to the what the Attorney General for California has to say on the subject:
ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/credit_card_chargeback_rights.php
While it might vary a bit depending on where you live... the gist is this:
Clearly in favor of the customer. It's really in the interest of a merchant to make sure the customer is satisfied and happy.
Here is also a link to MasterCard's merchant policy regarding charge-backs and other policies... it's 542 pages:
www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/TB_CB_Manual.pdf
Here is a link to Visa's merchant policy regarding charge-backs... it's 151 pages:
usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card_acceptance_guide.pdf
The charge-back feature is indeed a viable feature that customers have to get their money back if they are displeased with the merchandise. The bank may indeed deem the charge-back invalid... then the charge still applies. The merchant may indeed re-issue the fee... which in turn can be disputed once again.
The only way a customer is going to get a "black mark" on their credit rating is if they repeatedly abuse the charge-back feature. It is there for the precise reason of a customer feeling that they received a product that was not what they were expecting. Merchants that accept CC's know this and willingly accept the policies that go with them.
From the perspective of the merchant trying to avoid charge-backs this site advertising their product was an interesting read:
www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/79598218-how-to-beat-chargebacks
A couple quotes from the site above:
Hopefully those sites above should give everyone who wants it the informaiton they need to determine the truth about charge-backs.
Thank you, finally some cited truth on the matter.
Also, it seems that SnarlingWolf's story was completely made up after all. Fraudulent charges always favour the card-holder, as I've been saying the entire time.
Yeah, any research on the subject shows:
Does the above get taken advantage of by unscrupulous customers?... Probably.
Are merchants at a disadvantage when it comes to CC's and charge-backs?... Definitely.
All the more reason for merchants to make sure they are doing everything they can to keep as many customers as possible happy and gain a good reputation for themselves with their customers.
Like it or not, this is the environment that merchants must deal with when dealing with CC's and customers.
My main reason for poking around in this thread was to help dispell mis-information. Hopefully some of the links above might help in that regards.
I appreciate the links, but I don't really see a discredit to anything that was said. As stated in my last dispute they told me that if the investigation comes out in favor of the company I would still be responsible for the charge. They charged back the money immediately to my account. Had they come back in their investigation and found that I was viable for the charge, it would show back up. I have not seen it back yet, but the CSR told me it was a possibility over the phone. Thats not against the law, and both the credit card and account was from chase. This means that if under investigation of the charge, there is a possibility that you will not receive your money back. Thats all I was saying.
Wait, are you SnarlingWolf now? It was SnarlingWolf who originally posted that.
He said: "I had an issue with a fradulent charge from a web-site."
If you'll read the links again, fraudulent charges are always, always decided in favour of the card hold. Always. This falls under "billing errors." This is by law and by the credit card company's own policies.
Also, chargebacks are almost always ruled in favour of the customer. Your post and the post you are defending reads like pure fiction because this is simply not how things work.
They're the same person on multiple accounts.
A couple of things I want to point out which may have been pointed out before but there is a lot of noise in this thread.
On a side note, I am curious as to what exactly they removed from the species creator?
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
They removed klingon and ferengi bodyparts, supposedly due to "graphical glitches" and then have put them back in again as a cash shop item.
So, yeah...
I have no information on whether or not STO is producing false information, providing you a way to cancel but I can say I have done this in the past for LOTRO.
I almost bought into their cheap promotion to obtain the expansion pack of Mirkwood untill after signing up I seen the other part of the expansion pack was sold seperately as an "adventure pack". I called Turbine and let me them now I wanted a refund due to misleading advertisements. They refunded my money.
If that is the reason they gave and then they only show up now in the cash shop now, I would say that's pretty sleezy.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
A friend of mine just did a chargeback through his credit card on the game because of all the gameplay issues he's been having and horrible customer service. As an fyi, the "as is" claim in an MMO EULA is not valid in many states. Here's a quote from the Federal Trade Commission that explains this:
"Some states do not allow you to sell consumer products "as is." At this time, these states are Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. In those states, sellers have implied warranty obligations that cannot be avoided."
(http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus01.shtm)
So, if you're in these states, and your game is busted, you are protected. Enjoy those consumer rights!
I'll pull up an example of a falsity on the page:
"Your ship will retain a Star Trek "feel," but it will also represent your style. What’s more, anyone can create their own species in Star Trek Online, meaning you can tell your own story about how you came to be in the galaxy. Leave your mark on the Star Trek universe!"
You cannot create your own species, at all. This is a feature that was removed to allow Cryptic to nickel and dime players.
Wow, I didn't realize that. Did they actually take out the custom alien race feature? That more or less kills the character creation aspect, if it's true and accurate.
The custom race feature is still in, however they removed certain pieces from the creator so that you'd have to buy the races made out of those pieces.
Not quite true either. They removed some Ferengi parts (in closed beta) that weren't meshing well with the custom layout and they do charge $1 to play Ferengi.
ALL Klingon parts are still a part of the custom Alien option. People who pay $3 to play a Starfleet Klingon are paying to get access to the Klingon racials (which aren't as good as the custom alien options for minmaxing) and the name "Klingon" instead of "Alien" when someone inspects you. You can even get the equivalent of the Klingon racials with a combination of traits but it would make you more ground combat focused. It's essentially for OCD RPers. There's some talk that "real" Klingons may be allowed to wear sashes like Worf but nothing confirmed by developers.
It would be the same thing if Blizzard charged $3 to play a "Ranger" class and gave you a hunter with no pet taming abilities and slightly upped damage/survivability to compensate. Not as good as the Hunter you could make for free but slightly better for somebody who was going to roll a Hunter with no pet "for roleplay reasons" anyway.
Also, I've heard that Cryptic is quietly issuing refunds for purchases made through them in cases where people are polite and willing to stay on hold for awhile. They aren't going to publicize it because they don't want everyone doing it and because their approach seems to be to issue a form rejection to anyone who screams at them.
They currently have tens of thousands of tickets they're processing but I have yet to hear of anybody who was denied a refund unless they blew up at the service rep, although it does take an hour to get through to a rep. The odds will go down with time that they will honor refunds.
You can't get a refund from Cryptic for something you bought from Amazon, naturally. But I've heard they've been very forgiving of lifetime refunds and year subscription refunds during the grace period, which just ended, and that they're generally forgiving within the first 30 days, although they obviously won't make promises unless the law requires it.
No. it isn't.
Your mentality is different, but, it doesn't make the OP wrong in any shape or form.
If he doesn't feel he got the value for his money, why should he just accept the product? If Cryptic is not willing to give any unsatified customer they're money back, then that customer has the right to go to there card holder and say "this isn't what I wanted".
Just like any other business based mostly on accepting the terms & conditions of credit cards.
See, when I went over this same thing about Mortal Online, everyone said, OH it was in beta, it wasn't released, etc. etc. and you know what? they had a point, the game wasn't released, they just made a bad decision, but the developers were too stupid to cover their ass or be responsible. Now heres a released game, stable, with most people having box in hand, or special items in game already or whatever, and they don't like it so they want their money back. I stand firm on the fact that this is ridiculously childish. I just disputed something on my credit card yesterday, and going through the dispute reasons with the credit card company "I didn't like it" wasn't one of the choices I was able to choose for dispute.
Thats all this ends up being, and if you had any sense at all, you wouldn't buy the game on release if you were going to just turn tail and give up because its not to your liking. Going through the credit card company is also extremely cowardly. Most of the time, and even cryptic has in the past, had their customer support refund charges based on customer dissatisfaction. If you spoke with them and told them you were considering disputing the charge due to false advertising, they would've probably given your money back as they did for players of champions online.
Instead you go straight to the credit card company, and I honestly hope cryptic disputes those charges.
My roommate once bought a video game that we had been waiting years for. We greatly enjoyed the last game of the series, and we were waiting for this game with baited breath. He bought the game on release day, it cost him $65 or so. He brought it home where we all crowded around his computer as he installed it and booted that game up for the first time.
And it turned out that that game, Master of Orion 4, was utter and complete crap. My roommate was pretty much heart-broken. He played the game for about 45 minutes, trying to see if it got any better, but it was just a bad game through and through.
Are you saying he didn't deserve his money back? He was thoroughly unsatisfied with his purchase to the point of bitter disappointment. Why shouldn't he have been allowed to return that game? Should the company keep his money for a video game he didn't enjoy or even keep playing?
Because you have no right to satisfaction in entertainment. You pay for the chance that you might be entertained. If the movie theater/store/whatever gives you a refund, they do it as a customer courtesy. And I think it's great if they do but I never felt entitled to get $8.50 back for a movie that sucked and I think the people who make an inferior movie (or game) get punished enough because I don't spend more or encourage other people to spend more on it.
This is an EXTREMELY interesting case.
This moral dilemma looks like this:
On one hand there is this really shitty game company launching their really shitty game and charging you with money you pay for any other good game out there, I can see why the customer thinks he is scammed.
On the other hand a question to the customer: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING, MAN??? This game was free to play during the open beta, the player's reviews (most of them) made it clear that this game is not worth the money you pay for it. You made a thoughtless move and now you regret it.
THEN again if he missed the beta for some reason and he is a huge star trek fan I see why he wanted to try the game, hoping it to be the best thing ever happened to him.
Personally I think its wrong for game companies to not let you try the product you're about to buy, basicly because if you're buying a car you can always test drive it and see if its the thing you want, I dont see why games is any different from this, they give free trial to almost any old game out there (WoW, EVE etc) why not new ones??? Oh right, that way they can't force you into buying some candy covered in dog poo. Thats just wrong, so when I'm finishing this post I'm siding more with the customer here.
Bottom line is - make a good game and you won't have to face problems like unhappy customers doing chargebacks!
1) Natural Immunities and Acute Senses are available as options for the "Alien" custom race, meaning your only paying to have your head look like a butt.
2) Warrior and Honorable are somewhat more of a grey area in that they are Klingon specific (though Alien offers nearly identical abilities with slighly lower bonus percentages), but means these abilities are technically aquirable in game... your not paying to play a Klingon, you can already do that, your paying to play a Klingon in a diffrent faction. How you view this depends on how you want to nitpick. For my part since no other mainstream MMO with factional PvP that I can think of has any mechnism for cross-faction racial play, personally I don't see this as unfair... and based on the fact of the situation I would view using this as the basis of a fraud case... as fraud... particularly since I very much doubt that anyone who is now launching a charge dispute through their credit card company is doing so because they have to pay for use of Warrior and Honorable on the Federation side. In fact I'm relatively sure that anyone who buy Federation Klingon, bought them for purely cosmetic reasons, not because they JUST HAD to have Warrior and Honorable on the Federation side for gameplay reasons.
Right. The thing is, with Alien custom traits, you can get ranged, melee, crit, threat and resistance bonuses equal to that and then some. You'll just be tying up four traits in ground racials. That's why I didn't go into specifics.
In the end, it's more gimped than a well customized Alien in both cases. You can make a PERFECT Klingon in the creator. You're just paying for the word "Klingon" and the racials which offers passive stats you can get through other means (Soldier, Physical Strength and a couple others).
It's like paying Blizzard for a petless hunter that gets the "Ranger" name or paying to play a "Soldier" that's just an Arms warrior without the other two trees. It's an RP perk and not even a particularly cosmetic one.
Ferengi parts were removed in Closed Beta because they weren't modular enough to work with the custom alien option.
I mean, you might as well argue that Blizzard removing Blood Elf Warriors in TBC Beta and then offering them again in Cataclysm is the same thing, "charging you for content that was a part of beta".
It would be like Blizzard charging $3 to play a Dwarf Mage. They offered those in Vanilla WoW Beta too but it doesn't necessarily have a lot of synergy with the racials. (Treasure Hunter being better for rogues and gun spec being for people who use guns and the mining bonus being better for classes that can mine.) It's really like saying, "This is gimped but you really want that text next to your name, knock yourself out."
They removed klingon and ferengi bodyparts, supposedly due to "graphical glitches" and then have put them back in again as a cash shop item.
So, yeah...
Again, there were graphical issues with the Ferengi bodyparts and they never removed the Klingon parts. They were still there two hours ago when I checked, a week after paid Klingons were added to the store.
No. it isn't.
Your mentality is different, but, it doesn't make the OP wrong in any shape or form.
If he doesn't feel he got the value for his money, why should he just accept the product? If Cryptic is not willing to give any unsatified customer they're money back, then that customer has the right to go to there card holder and say "this isn't what I wanted".
Just like any other business based mostly on accepting the terms & conditions of credit cards.
See, when I went over this same thing about Mortal Online, everyone said, OH it was in beta, it wasn't released, etc. etc. and you know what? they had a point, the game wasn't released, they just made a bad decision, but the developers were too stupid to cover their ass or be responsible. Now heres a released game, stable, with most people having box in hand, or special items in game already or whatever, and they don't like it so they want their money back. I stand firm on the fact that this is ridiculously childish. I just disputed something on my credit card yesterday, and going through the dispute reasons with the credit card company "I didn't like it" wasn't one of the choices I was able to choose for dispute.
Thats all this ends up being, and if you had any sense at all, you wouldn't buy the game on release if you were going to just turn tail and give up because its not to your liking. Going through the credit card company is also extremely cowardly. Most of the time, and even cryptic has in the past, had their customer support refund charges based on customer dissatisfaction. If you spoke with them and told them you were considering disputing the charge due to false advertising, they would've probably given your money back as they did for players of champions online.
Instead you go straight to the credit card company, and I honestly hope cryptic disputes those charges.
My roommate once bought a video game that we had been waiting years for. We greatly enjoyed the last game of the series, and we were waiting for this game with baited breath. He bought the game on release day, it cost him $65 or so. He brought it home where we all crowded around his computer as he installed it and booted that game up for the first time.
And it turned out that that game, Master of Orion 4, was utter and complete crap. My roommate was pretty much heart-broken. He played the game for about 45 minutes, trying to see if it got any better, but it was just a bad game through and through.
Are you saying he didn't deserve his money back? He was thoroughly unsatisfied with his purchase to the point of bitter disappointment. Why shouldn't he have been allowed to return that game? Should the company keep his money for a video game he didn't enjoy or even keep playing?
Because you have no right to satisfaction in entertainment. You pay for the chance that you might be entertained. If the movie theater/store/whatever gives you a refund, they do it as a customer courtesy. And I think it's great if they do but I never felt entitled to get $8.50 back for a movie that sucked and I think the people who make an inferior movie (or game) get punished enough because I don't spend more or encourage other people to spend more on it.
If I walked out of a movie that really sucked, I would most certainly ask for my money back, and I'd hope the movie theater would refund it. Go see a movie in the first week when the production companies get the majority of ticket sales, that way if you have to walk out on a movie you'll be punishing the creators of trash movies and not the local cinema.
This really wouldn't surprise me at all. My past experience with Cryptic was positive in terms of customer support. I played CoH before they left their partnership with NCsoft.
I think they realize that some problems exist with this game in terms of bugs and an apparent discrepancy between the way RMT was marketted versus how it was implemented. In many states the "as is" clause in the EULA is simply not applicable by law, and it's always a problem to say one thing in your pre-release marketting and then turn around and do the opposite after you accept payment.