...then I get an email stating I had just paid for a months subscription. My account was created in July last year, this is the first direct email from them since then. No email stating your subscription will start on XX, no email to even say the game was now released!
I used to check for updates now and then but eventually stopped that as it was taking so long.
There is no way you "gave up on all MMOs" and "forgot about this game for 6 months" and complain about server stability or make suggestions about game mechanics. __________________"
So basically he's done a charge back on the basis of not knowing/not getting an email telling him it was set to renew HOWEVER he's also been playing the game.
...then I get an email stating I had just paid for a months subscription. My account was created in July last year, this is the first direct email from them since then. No email stating your subscription will start on XX, no email to even say the game was now released!
I used to check for updates now and then but eventually stopped that as it was taking so long.
There is no way you "gave up on all MMOs" and "forgot about this game for 6 months" and complain about server stability or make suggestions about game mechanics. __________________"
So basically he's done a charge back on the basis of not knowing/not getting an email telling him it was set to renew HOWEVER he's also been playing the game.
Forget *his* specific argument.
Do you deny that people are being charged without their express consent? Do you think it's legal to hold on to credit card information without informing the consumer? Do you think it's legal to enter them into a subscription without their consent?
Reading that thread, it seems apparent that people that are defending SV's actions really have no care about the legalities of ethicality of this -- it's simply to "prove the guy wrong". The TOS when those guys bought the game did NOT expressly inform them of their credit card information being held, did not enter them into a subscription, and I hope that more and more people go to the EU and file complaints against SV. We warned people months ago about this, and at the time were shouted down, "No, that will never happen!" -- and the reality is, it HAS.
Now instead of owning up to saying "yea it happened", it's more a crusade to prove people are telling lies, or finding one little argument in their posts that allows them to disregard the whole thing entirely.
Forget *his* specific argument. YOU chose to use him as an example
Do you deny that people are being charged without their express consent? At this point I don't believe anyone ios denying that it has happened to some people. Do you think it's legal to hold on to credit card information without informing the consumer? Do you think it's legal to enter them into a subscription without their consent? I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. I concede that it is bad PR, and probably a bad decision, but I don't know what their options were. If the only option was to drop all accounts and force everyone to restart their subscription, this may actually have been the better decision.
Reading that thread, it seems apparent that people that are defending SV's actions really have no care about the legalities of ethicality of this -- it's simply to "prove the guy wrong". The TOS when those guys bought the game did NOT expressly inform them of their credit card information being held, did not enter them into a subscription, and I hope that more and more people go to the EU and file complaints against SV. We warned people months ago about this, and at the time were shouted down, "No, that will never happen!" -- and the reality is, it HAS.
Now instead of owning up to saying "yea it happened", it's more a crusade to prove people are telling lies, or finding one little argument in their posts that allows them to disregard the whole thing entirely. You really should take Aetheryn, zekkcc, aesbestos, and Xianthos off your ignore list, as all of them have "owned up" in THIS thread, despite wishing that the game does well.
Admittedly, there are people that seem to be shifting all the blame to the people who got billed. But by the same token, there are people making absurd claims about getting charged, apparently just to stir the pot. Regarding Dravius, on June 20th he makes an argument that hinges on the game being released (no longer in beta), then on July 15th claims that he didn't even know the game was active. He has now started 2 thread on this same subject. http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1384141 Meanwhile, Drel claims he never purchased the game and never had an account yet somehow got charged for a subscription on his closed account on the credit card he never told SV about.http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/284646/StarVault-is-billing-any-closed-accountsact-of-fraud.html Misleading arguments are wrong regardless of which side they are arguing.
I will check back with my mea culpa later. I just want to word it carefully.
Don't understand the confusion here. What SV did was outright fraud. There was no agreement by the customer to be billed for monthly charges. Should be no problem with any bank reversing the charges. Personally I would be contacting my attorney general because of the fraud.
This is not the first time a MMO has done this. Does not speak well for the company or the game either. Pretty much ended the previous MMO's who did such a dirty deed too.
Just because a comany sends you an e-mail saying they are going to charge you does not mean that you authorized it. They can not charge it without your authorization.
Just because a comany sends you an e-mail saying they are going to charge you does not mean that you authorized it. They can not charge it without your authorization.
This is what people are forgetting, "They can not charge it without your authorization" this is why mostly all MMO's go the route of a new CD-Key that gives you your free month and ordered items and THEN you pick a subscription.
It doesn't matter what kind of "Options" SV had, they should of done it the legit way and not try to bend the rules. The people who are defending SV on this should be in shame, are you out of your mind? Do you not understand you can't be binded by a pre-order that had it's TOS changed months later? All of this requires authorization from the consumer/customer. "The Email states this" "The website states that" where is the acceptance? They pushed it onto people and stole money.
Defend it if you want but the fact still stands - SV has proven to be a shady company.
Pre-ordered back in June/July to try the game out and just been ninja billed. Really pissed off that they went this route, and I can categorically state that I never received an email from them telling me my free month was up and I was going to be subscribed.
Legal? Maybe, but it's certainly pissed me off to no end, and just ensured that I'd never touch this game, or any other Starvault product with a ten foot pole.
But it is very clearly laid out and easy to understand, so they don't need to change it. If the vast majority of people had issues navigating it, then they might think of changing it, but there's really no need for them to do so. Seriously, if someone can't manage to read the plain English and simple directions on the billing website, then they shouldn't be allowed a bank account in the first place, and should make all their transactions using M&M's as currency.
Admittedly snarky to quote you back at yourself, but just noting that you should hold yourself to the same standards that you det for others. If you berate others for being confused by billing websites, you shouldn't expect any sympathy for you being unaware of the game going live and the billing being put in place.
Sorry but have you actually read this thread? This isn't about a website being difficult to understand. This is about people being set to auto-sub without being given the choice. Like many others I realised this was a turkey so just ignored it, and you shouldn't have to check to see if a company has decided to quickly change their TOS and auto bill when there was never even an option to subscribe to the game when I pre-ordered it.
It's really quite simple, so not quite sure what you're struggling to understand. Kudos for a bit of cyber stalking and digging up an old post of mine that has bugger all to do with this one.
First of all the "mea culpa" I mentioned before. I did previously note that SV had no intention of billing people who did not wish to play the game. Obviously, that has been done regardless of what there intent may have been. All the people who do not wish to continue their subscription and have not logged in since the end of the free month are entitled to a refund.
By sending out an e-mail notification of the game launching and the need to cancel subscriptions before the end of the free month, Starvault may have met the minimum legal and ethical standard. (Damning with faint praise) Clearly a better system could have been put in place (i.e. approving charges when you first log in after the free month ended) All of that being said, they may not have been able to implement anything along those lines or any other system that didn't become an obstacle to those who did wish to subscribe. As such we may just now be seeing the end result of a decision made several months ago.
While I concede that Starvault's decision about billing was inappropriate and ethically questionable, some people are getting hyperbolic about how bad it is and in some circumstances lying about what has happened.
Some people are claiming that it is somehow dishonest that SV keeps their CC information listed even after cancellation, and that it is somehow unusual. Checking my Sony station account, I can tell you they still have the information for a credit card that expired a year and a half ago.
Accusations of fraud are also off base, at least when they appeal to it being illegal behavior. It may be fraud in terms of being deceptive, but unless you have taken this to court it has not been established as legally fraudulent. To be ruled as fraud from a legal standpoint there are several elements. The most relevant here is whether starvault was aware that the falsity of the assertion that the person had agreed to a subscription. When people purchase a game that is played on a subscription basis, it implies that they wish to subscribe. Starvault made and effort (albeit weak) to notify people of impending charges. When they received no notification about cancelling, they acted on the implied consent from the time of purchase. As such, this is primarily a dispute over the terms of a contract and certainly can be considered unjust enrichment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment but not fraud. Good luck with those calls to the DA
First of all the "mea culpa" I mentioned before. I did previously note that SV had no intention of billing people who did not wish to play the game. Obviously, that has been done regardless of what there intent may have been. All the people who do not wish to continue their subscription and have not logged in since the end of the free month are entitled to a refund.
By sending out an e-mail notification of the game launching and the need to cancel subscriptions before the end of the free month, Starvault may have met the minimum legal and ethical standard. (Damning with faint praise) Clearly a better system could have been put in place (i.e. approving charges when you first log in after the free month ended) All of that being said, they may not have been able to implement anything along those lines or any other system that didn't become an obstacle to those who did wish to subscribe. As such we may just now be seeing the end result of a decision made several months ago.
If you think retaining a customer's credit card info and then charging it without their consent is legal even by sending an email, then I really don't know what to say.
There's nothing legal about this, and the way they went about it makes it that much more unethical. Many of us knew this was going to happen, and had to fight with the arguments that "SV wouldn't do that". Aside from your mea culpa here, all of those folks are now silent on the issue entirely, because the push to defend SV has been so great, despite the way they act as a company. If you support this game, you support this behavior, and as a result I can bet you'll find many more companies trying something similar. So many people are so desperate to find a game they like, that they will defend any type of behavior to have their needs meet the ends that SV is engaging in.
People are jumping on the guy because he got billed unjustly, and is now complaining about it. Some say "Cut your losses", others yell at him about the state of MMOs, and basically downloaded the client because SV denied him a refund. Others are telling him that he should "donate" his money to SV because there are worse ways to spend $15, and because it helps SV realize the dream of MO to come true.
This is not his responsibility, to ensure that MO has a solid financial base to build the game from, nor is it his fault that they automatically billed him for the game. He is entitled not only to a refund, but also to punitive damages to ensure that SV doesn't do this again. And without this information readily availble on this forum now, SV will be happy to delete every thread, close every conversation, and avoid the topic entirely about their unethical and ILLEGAL business practices.
This is who you are doing business with. A shady, underhanded company. And for what? The "dream" game you always wanted? I am unsure if people are willing to put their morals and ethics to the side in order to gain a short term dream of a video game. Perhaps I misjudge people on that respect, I really don't know. But this is happening, it's widespread, and I really hope that SV gets sued and had damages they have to pay out for it.
What a deceiving game... but this isn't the subject isn't it? lol.. I beta'd it, then let the game unbug a little bit... just before release I unchecked the "Active" checkbox... and after release I returned to check if it was active and IT WAS... I unchecked again Active and it's still inactive as we talk.
Perhaps that's the only misunderstanding.. if you got the game when it was in beta and unchecked the "active" mark (because it's set to active when buying) before the end of the beta, I'm sure the release day they put a SQL request to set all active account(the first month was included, so all account was Active!) to ACTIVE (Active = reccuring)... this could be why I got to turn off this twice... and perhaps the source of all the problems... I couldn't find any way to reset my credit card information (Ex : to sell it to someone else for a few bucks... so I just deleted the account to be sure).
It's better to have a few $$$ more instead of being good with players that will not come back anyway...
While I concede that Starvault's decision about billing was inappropriate and ethically questionable, some people are getting hyperbolic about how bad it is and in some circumstances lying about what has happened.
Some people are claiming that it is somehow dishonest that SV keeps their CC information listed even after cancellation, and that it is somehow unusual. Checking my Sony station account, I can tell you they still have the information for a credit card that expired a year and a half ago.
Accusations of fraud are also off base, at least when they appeal to it being illegal behavior. It may be fraud in terms of being deceptive, but unless you have taken this to court it has not been established as legally fraudulent. To be ruled as fraud from a legal standpoint there are several elements. The most relevant here is whether starvault was aware that the falsity of the assertion that the person had agreed to a subscription. When people purchase a game that is played on a subscription basis, it implies that they wish to subscribe. Starvault made and effort (albeit weak) to notify people of impending charges. When they received no notification about cancelling, they acted on the implied consent from the time of purchase. As such, this is primarily a dispute over the terms of a contract and certainly can be considered unjust enrichment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment but not fraud. Good luck with those calls to the DA
Gotta love it when a "Mea Culpa" is followed by a post twice as long defending the company's practice and calling out individuals complaining. This is a classic "Yeah, BUT..." argument. There is no moral or legal equivalency between an individual (possibly) exagerating a claim and a company knowingly stonewalling questions on the subject FOR MONTHS before ninja-billing people for subscriptions they never signed up for...
On that note, it is NOT the company's function to determin the "intent" of the customer. They either agreed to a subscription or they didn't. Something happened.. or it didn't happen. There is no hanging chad. If people agreed to be subscribed they get billed.. if they never agreed to be subscribed, they don't. It's really that simple. No one in their right mind would think it's OK for a company to unilateraly divine the "intent" of a customer to spend more money than they agreed to.
PS: As far as divining the "intent" of the customer... I would say that the fact a person hadn't logged in for the whole month of release (and potentially 10 months before that) was a pretty strong indicator of their intent.. and obviously that was something the company could easilly have checked with their logs. They didn't.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
PS: As far as divining the "intent" of the customer... I would say that the fact a person hadn't logged in for the whole month of release (and potentially 10 months before that) was a pretty strong indicator of their intent.. and obviously that was something the company could easilly have checked with their logs. They didn't.
They don't want a good name, they want cash.. that's it... why bother refunding all thoses quitting players... they won't come back anyway... instead it's much more interesting to keep the money... and tell everyone it was written in the 50 pages terms and conditions you agreed on and no one reads...
PS: As far as divining the "intent" of the customer... I would say that the fact a person hadn't logged in for the whole month of release (and potentially 10 months before that) was a pretty strong indicator of their intent.. and obviously that was something the company could easilly have checked with their logs. They didn't.
They don't want a good name, they want cash.. that's it... why bother refunding all thoses quitting players... they won't come back anyway... instead it's much more interesting to keep the money... and tell everyone it was written in the 50 pages terms and conditions you agreed on and no one reads...
But that's just it... it WASN'T in those terms and conditions. This discussion is about those people who purchased the game from July 2009 to March 2010 when the TOS clearly stated that to be enrolled in a subscription you had to choose a sub type and payment method. Neither were possible because prior to March of 2010 there WAS no account page with subscription settings where you could choose.
So in effect you have people who bought the game a year ago.. tried it in beta.. decided it wasn't for them.. were told by the TOS that they would have to pick a sub type and payment method to be subscribed... which was impossible.. so they deleted MO and never gave it another though... until they started getting billed a few days ago.
* I'm pretty sure it was March.. perhaps Feb.. if anyone cares they can look up the actual date the subscriptions went online.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Subscription fees. After your thirty (30) days, you are required to pay a subscription fee to maintain your
account and access the game. Star Vault AB may amend the subscription fee and payment terms at any
time. All subscription fees are non?refundable. If Star Vault AB is unable to process your payment at any
time, your Account may be immediately suspended or terminated at Star Vault AB's discretion.
So perhaps this sucky way of making money was planned by SV... Sell betas 1 years before, and create the web page for subscriptions just a few days before release, reset the active flag, then bingo (a few $$$$$ bucks more in your pocket).
Subscription fees. After your thirty (30) days, you are required to pay a subscription fee to maintain your
account and access the game. Star Vault AB may amend the subscription fee and payment terms at any
time. All subscription fees are non?refundable. If Star Vault AB is unable to process your payment at any
time, your Account may be immediately suspended or terminated at Star Vault AB's discretion. So perhaps this sucky way of making money was planned by SV... Sell betas 1 years before, and create the web page for subscriptions just a few days before release, reset the active flag, then bingo (a few $$$$$ bucks more in your pocket). Gratz to SV for leveling up to thief lvl3.
I don't think it was their thought all along, but I think with the waning interest day to day, with people leaving the closed BETA in big numbers because the game was broken beyond belief, it was a simple idea to enable the auto subscription for those people without their consent. They are going for a cash grab now, game be damned. If enough people do chargebacks on their credit card, SV will lose their merchant accounts and won't be able to process *any* payments. This is a very real possibility. That's not the least of it, of course. If customers line up and start talking to the consumer affairs bureau in Sweden, then SV may be charged with penalties -- that would exceed their input for taking all that cash to begin with.
I think with the low subscription numbers (only ~60% of ACTIVE forum members, which means a lot less of overall users), SV knows that going in for the cash as long as possible is the primary motivation. You are not going to see any leaps and bounds in the game becuase of the size and experience of the development staff -- else you would have already seen it in the last year+ the game has been in development. The fact they are getting paid won't speed up development if they don't add to the team. I think they are trying to pay off some debts, get some cash in hand, and run. At least this seems indicative of the stupid business decisions they are making that actually endanger the game as a whole.
I think with the low subscription numbers (only ~60% of ACTIVE forum members, which means a lot less of overall users), SV knows that going in for the cash as long as possible is the primary motivation. You are not going to see any leaps and bounds in the game becuase of the size and experience of the development staff -- else you would have already seen it in the last year+ the game has been in development. The fact they are getting paid won't speed up development if they don't add to the team. I think they are trying to pay off some debts, get some cash in hand, and run. At least this seems indicative of the stupid business decisions they are making that actually endanger the game as a whole.
I think you're drawing way too many conclusions based on forum polls. You both assume that reliable information can be gained from forum polls, and that the actual numbers skew toward the "not sub" position (which seems to contradict point 1, but whatever).
To be honest, I haven't seen any change in in-game population from last night, when compared to 2-3 weeks ago (after the launch-week feeding frenzy).
Also, you say SV's plan is to run. Are you saying they plan on straight-up scamming the players by pulling the plug as soon as they pay off their debts and 'line their pockets'? That seems a bit...unlikely to me.
[quote][i]Originally posted by BLittmanEsq[/i] I think you're drawing way too many conclusions based on forum polls. You both assume that information can be gained from forum polls, and that the actual numbers skew toward the "not sub" position. To be honest, I haven't seen any change in in-game population from last night, when compared to 2-3 weeks ago (after the launch-week feeding frenzy). Also, you say SV's plan is to run. Are you saying they plan on straight-up scamming the players? That seems a bit paranoid to me. [/quote]
There have been multiple polls on the MO forums that run in the range of around 60-65% resubscribing. Now, if you figure that a lot of folks who aren't following the game any more and gave up many months ago, they probably aren't on the forums to vote in that poll either. Logic dictates that with those people not following the game and also not playing it, they are also not going to resubscribe.
As for the plan to straight up scam players... they already have scammed them. What they have done is illegal and unethical, by keeping customer's credit card information without their consent. If they get a lot of chargebacks, they will lose their merchant account, and if enough people complain to the consumer protection agency in Sweden or the EU, they will be investigated and fined for it. Both of those things are situations that I don't think SV will make it through, since everything is already at a point where they are out of cash and needed to launch, so I don't see them surviving if they lose their merchant account, or get in trouble with the consumer protection agency.
I know you don't have first-hand experience so you have to rely on internet posts, but you seem to overlook all the people saying "I haven't noticed any drop in population, and I'm in-game". You overlook those because they contradict your thesis.
So again: I haven't noticed any drop in population in the last few weeks. Maybe, just maybe, forum polls aren't scientifically/statistically rigorous enough to be trusted. Or am I just going insane?
I know you don't have first-hand experience so you have to rely on internet posts, but you seem to overlook all the people saying "I haven't noticed any drop in population, and I'm in-game". You overlook those because they contradict your thesis.
So again: I haven't noticed any drop in population in the last few weeks. Maybe, just maybe, forum polls aren't scientifically/statistically rigorous enough to be trusted. Or am I just going insane?
Heh... You going insane have nothing to do with how pointless forum polls are.
Heck, I'm convinced you will have votes on the polls that are from people who never played or never intend to play the game.
I know you don't have first-hand experience so you have to rely on internet posts, but you seem to overlook all the people saying "I haven't noticed any drop in population, and I'm in-game". You overlook those because they contradict your thesis.
So again: I haven't noticed any drop in population in the last few weeks. Maybe, just maybe, forum polls aren't scientifically/statistically rigorous enough to be trusted. Or am I just going insane?
A drop in the game isn't really as big, because the people actively playing on a day-to-day in MO are going to keep playing. THey also make up the larger portion of the subscribers that want to actively subscribe.
I'm talking about people who have *no idea* about what's going on right now, because they gave up on the game MONTHS ago. And believe me, there are a lot of those. In my own guild I know three, plus several others who just played the first month and won't be re-subbing. We have a guildmember who went to Afghanistan and we've tried to email, but the odds are right now, Star Vault billed him without his knowledge. Heck, he doesn't even respond to friends he knows, why would he respond or see an email from a game he doesn't even care about?
That's what I meant -- these folks that haven't been here for months aren't going to vote on those polls. They won't be in the game in the last four weeks either, so there won't be a significant drop in population in game either.
Comments
Read later down the thread, someones proven him to be lying.
"For some people, I understand the complaint, but you are just complaining to complain. You even contradict yourself in several places....
Let us see ....
================================================== =======
"I forgot about this game for 6 months...
...then I get an email stating I had just paid for a months subscription. My account was created in July last year, this is the first direct email from them since then. No email stating your subscription will start on XX, no email to even say the game was now released!
I used to check for updates now and then but eventually stopped that as it was taking so long.
I have no problem with the money I spent buying the game, but this sneaky subscription bill, and their subsequent refusal to refund, is pathetic." http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/4...-6-months.html
"I've given up on MMOs completely, the hours of fun you derive from them does not compensate for the days/weeks/months of gathering/grinding." http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/968248-post9.html
1st July 2010, 20:03
Starter weapon should respawn in your bank when you die, problem solved.
http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/948311-post25.html
20th June 2010, 19:46 Don't be a smartass,; he actually did pay for the first month when he paid for the game. http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/927059-post17.html
================================================== =========
There is no way you "gave up on all MMOs" and "forgot about this game for 6 months" and complain about server stability or make suggestions about game mechanics. __________________"
So basically he's done a charge back on the basis of not knowing/not getting an email telling him it was set to renew HOWEVER he's also been playing the game.
Forget *his* specific argument.
Do you deny that people are being charged without their express consent? Do you think it's legal to hold on to credit card information without informing the consumer? Do you think it's legal to enter them into a subscription without their consent?
Reading that thread, it seems apparent that people that are defending SV's actions really have no care about the legalities of ethicality of this -- it's simply to "prove the guy wrong". The TOS when those guys bought the game did NOT expressly inform them of their credit card information being held, did not enter them into a subscription, and I hope that more and more people go to the EU and file complaints against SV. We warned people months ago about this, and at the time were shouted down, "No, that will never happen!" -- and the reality is, it HAS.
Now instead of owning up to saying "yea it happened", it's more a crusade to prove people are telling lies, or finding one little argument in their posts that allows them to disregard the whole thing entirely.
Don't understand the confusion here. What SV did was outright fraud. There was no agreement by the customer to be billed for monthly charges. Should be no problem with any bank reversing the charges. Personally I would be contacting my attorney general because of the fraud.
This is not the first time a MMO has done this. Does not speak well for the company or the game either. Pretty much ended the previous MMO's who did such a dirty deed too.
Just because a comany sends you an e-mail saying they are going to charge you does not mean that you authorized it. They can not charge it without your authorization.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
This is what people are forgetting, "They can not charge it without your authorization" this is why mostly all MMO's go the route of a new CD-Key that gives you your free month and ordered items and THEN you pick a subscription.
It doesn't matter what kind of "Options" SV had, they should of done it the legit way and not try to bend the rules. The people who are defending SV on this should be in shame, are you out of your mind? Do you not understand you can't be binded by a pre-order that had it's TOS changed months later? All of this requires authorization from the consumer/customer. "The Email states this" "The website states that" where is the acceptance? They pushed it onto people and stole money.
Defend it if you want but the fact still stands - SV has proven to be a shady company.
Sorry but have you actually read this thread? This isn't about a website being difficult to understand. This is about people being set to auto-sub without being given the choice. Like many others I realised this was a turkey so just ignored it, and you shouldn't have to check to see if a company has decided to quickly change their TOS and auto bill when there was never even an option to subscribe to the game when I pre-ordered it.
It's really quite simple, so not quite sure what you're struggling to understand. Kudos for a bit of cyber stalking and digging up an old post of mine that has bugger all to do with this one.
First of all the "mea culpa" I mentioned before. I did previously note that SV had no intention of billing people who did not wish to play the game. Obviously, that has been done regardless of what there intent may have been. All the people who do not wish to continue their subscription and have not logged in since the end of the free month are entitled to a refund.
By sending out an e-mail notification of the game launching and the need to cancel subscriptions before the end of the free month, Starvault may have met the minimum legal and ethical standard. (Damning with faint praise) Clearly a better system could have been put in place (i.e. approving charges when you first log in after the free month ended) All of that being said, they may not have been able to implement anything along those lines or any other system that didn't become an obstacle to those who did wish to subscribe. As such we may just now be seeing the end result of a decision made several months ago.
While I concede that Starvault's decision about billing was inappropriate and ethically questionable, some people are getting hyperbolic about how bad it is and in some circumstances lying about what has happened.
The most outlandish is drel, who claims to have been billed despite never subscribing and never even purchasing the game in the first place http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/284646/StarVault-is-billing-any-closed-accountsact-of-fraud.html
Some people are claiming that it is somehow dishonest that SV keeps their CC information listed even after cancellation, and that it is somehow unusual. Checking my Sony station account, I can tell you they still have the information for a credit card that expired a year and a half ago.
Accusations of fraud are also off base, at least when they appeal to it being illegal behavior. It may be fraud in terms of being deceptive, but unless you have taken this to court it has not been established as legally fraudulent. To be ruled as fraud from a legal standpoint there are several elements. The most relevant here is whether starvault was aware that the falsity of the assertion that the person had agreed to a subscription. When people purchase a game that is played on a subscription basis, it implies that they wish to subscribe. Starvault made and effort (albeit weak) to notify people of impending charges. When they received no notification about cancelling, they acted on the implied consent from the time of purchase. As such, this is primarily a dispute over the terms of a contract and certainly can be considered unjust enrichment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment but not fraud. Good luck with those calls to the DA
If you think retaining a customer's credit card info and then charging it without their consent is legal even by sending an email, then I really don't know what to say.
There's nothing legal about this, and the way they went about it makes it that much more unethical. Many of us knew this was going to happen, and had to fight with the arguments that "SV wouldn't do that". Aside from your mea culpa here, all of those folks are now silent on the issue entirely, because the push to defend SV has been so great, despite the way they act as a company. If you support this game, you support this behavior, and as a result I can bet you'll find many more companies trying something similar. So many people are so desperate to find a game they like, that they will defend any type of behavior to have their needs meet the ends that SV is engaging in.
It's just a bit sad.
Take a look at this thread:
http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/50201-mortal-online-unfinished.html
People are jumping on the guy because he got billed unjustly, and is now complaining about it. Some say "Cut your losses", others yell at him about the state of MMOs, and basically downloaded the client because SV denied him a refund. Others are telling him that he should "donate" his money to SV because there are worse ways to spend $15, and because it helps SV realize the dream of MO to come true.
This is not his responsibility, to ensure that MO has a solid financial base to build the game from, nor is it his fault that they automatically billed him for the game. He is entitled not only to a refund, but also to punitive damages to ensure that SV doesn't do this again. And without this information readily availble on this forum now, SV will be happy to delete every thread, close every conversation, and avoid the topic entirely about their unethical and ILLEGAL business practices.
This is who you are doing business with. A shady, underhanded company. And for what? The "dream" game you always wanted? I am unsure if people are willing to put their morals and ethics to the side in order to gain a short term dream of a video game. Perhaps I misjudge people on that respect, I really don't know. But this is happening, it's widespread, and I really hope that SV gets sued and had damages they have to pay out for it.
Mortal Online...
What a deceiving game... but this isn't the subject isn't it? lol.. I beta'd it, then let the game unbug a little bit... just before release I unchecked the "Active" checkbox... and after release I returned to check if it was active and IT WAS... I unchecked again Active and it's still inactive as we talk.
Perhaps that's the only misunderstanding.. if you got the game when it was in beta and unchecked the "active" mark (because it's set to active when buying) before the end of the beta, I'm sure the release day they put a SQL request to set all active account(the first month was included, so all account was Active!) to ACTIVE (Active = reccuring)... this could be why I got to turn off this twice... and perhaps the source of all the problems... I couldn't find any way to reset my credit card information (Ex : to sell it to someone else for a few bucks... so I just deleted the account to be sure).
It's better to have a few $$$ more instead of being good with players that will not come back anyway...
IMO.
Gotta love it when a "Mea Culpa" is followed by a post twice as long defending the company's practice and calling out individuals complaining. This is a classic "Yeah, BUT..." argument. There is no moral or legal equivalency between an individual (possibly) exagerating a claim and a company knowingly stonewalling questions on the subject FOR MONTHS before ninja-billing people for subscriptions they never signed up for...
On that note, it is NOT the company's function to determin the "intent" of the customer. They either agreed to a subscription or they didn't. Something happened.. or it didn't happen. There is no hanging chad. If people agreed to be subscribed they get billed.. if they never agreed to be subscribed, they don't. It's really that simple. No one in their right mind would think it's OK for a company to unilateraly divine the "intent" of a customer to spend more money than they agreed to.
PS: As far as divining the "intent" of the customer... I would say that the fact a person hadn't logged in for the whole month of release (and potentially 10 months before that) was a pretty strong indicator of their intent.. and obviously that was something the company could easilly have checked with their logs. They didn't.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
They don't want a good name, they want cash.. that's it... why bother refunding all thoses quitting players... they won't come back anyway... instead it's much more interesting to keep the money... and tell everyone it was written in the 50 pages terms and conditions you agreed on and no one reads...
But that's just it... it WASN'T in those terms and conditions. This discussion is about those people who purchased the game from July 2009 to March 2010 when the TOS clearly stated that to be enrolled in a subscription you had to choose a sub type and payment method. Neither were possible because prior to March of 2010 there WAS no account page with subscription settings where you could choose.
So in effect you have people who bought the game a year ago.. tried it in beta.. decided it wasn't for them.. were told by the TOS that they would have to pick a sub type and payment method to be subscribed... which was impossible.. so they deleted MO and never gave it another though... until they started getting billed a few days ago.
* I'm pretty sure it was March.. perhaps Feb.. if anyone cares they can look up the actual date the subscriptions went online.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
lol they`re the first company I ever see with a refund policy outside of their terms and conditions document...
https://account.mortalonline.
https://account.mortalonline.
Subscription fees. After your thirty (30) days, you are required to pay a subscription fee to maintain your
account and access the game. Star Vault AB may amend the subscription fee and payment terms at any
time. All subscription fees are non?refundable. If Star Vault AB is unable to process your payment at any
time, your Account may be immediately suspended or terminated at Star Vault AB's discretion.
So perhaps this sucky way of making money was planned by SV... Sell betas 1 years before, and create the web page for subscriptions just a few days before release, reset the active flag, then bingo (a few $$$$$ bucks more in your pocket).
Gratz to SV for leveling up to thief lvl3.
I don't think it was their thought all along, but I think with the waning interest day to day, with people leaving the closed BETA in big numbers because the game was broken beyond belief, it was a simple idea to enable the auto subscription for those people without their consent. They are going for a cash grab now, game be damned. If enough people do chargebacks on their credit card, SV will lose their merchant accounts and won't be able to process *any* payments. This is a very real possibility. That's not the least of it, of course. If customers line up and start talking to the consumer affairs bureau in Sweden, then SV may be charged with penalties -- that would exceed their input for taking all that cash to begin with.
I think with the low subscription numbers (only ~60% of ACTIVE forum members, which means a lot less of overall users), SV knows that going in for the cash as long as possible is the primary motivation. You are not going to see any leaps and bounds in the game becuase of the size and experience of the development staff -- else you would have already seen it in the last year+ the game has been in development. The fact they are getting paid won't speed up development if they don't add to the team. I think they are trying to pay off some debts, get some cash in hand, and run. At least this seems indicative of the stupid business decisions they are making that actually endanger the game as a whole.
I think you're drawing way too many conclusions based on forum polls. You both assume that reliable information can be gained from forum polls, and that the actual numbers skew toward the "not sub" position (which seems to contradict point 1, but whatever).
To be honest, I haven't seen any change in in-game population from last night, when compared to 2-3 weeks ago (after the launch-week feeding frenzy).
Also, you say SV's plan is to run. Are you saying they plan on straight-up scamming the players by pulling the plug as soon as they pay off their debts and 'line their pockets'? That seems a bit...unlikely to me.
[quote][i]Originally posted by BLittmanEsq[/i] I think you're drawing way too many conclusions based on forum polls. You both assume that information can be gained from forum polls, and that the actual numbers skew toward the "not sub" position. To be honest, I haven't seen any change in in-game population from last night, when compared to 2-3 weeks ago (after the launch-week feeding frenzy). Also, you say SV's plan is to run. Are you saying they plan on straight-up scamming the players? That seems a bit paranoid to me. [/quote]
There have been multiple polls on the MO forums that run in the range of around 60-65% resubscribing. Now, if you figure that a lot of folks who aren't following the game any more and gave up many months ago, they probably aren't on the forums to vote in that poll either. Logic dictates that with those people not following the game and also not playing it, they are also not going to resubscribe.
As for the plan to straight up scam players... they already have scammed them. What they have done is illegal and unethical, by keeping customer's credit card information without their consent. If they get a lot of chargebacks, they will lose their merchant account, and if enough people complain to the consumer protection agency in Sweden or the EU, they will be investigated and fined for it. Both of those things are situations that I don't think SV will make it through, since everything is already at a point where they are out of cash and needed to launch, so I don't see them surviving if they lose their merchant account, or get in trouble with the consumer protection agency.
I know you don't have first-hand experience so you have to rely on internet posts, but you seem to overlook all the people saying "I haven't noticed any drop in population, and I'm in-game". You overlook those because they contradict your thesis.
So again: I haven't noticed any drop in population in the last few weeks. Maybe, just maybe, forum polls aren't scientifically/statistically rigorous enough to be trusted. Or am I just going insane?
Heh... You going insane have nothing to do with how pointless forum polls are.
Heck, I'm convinced you will have votes on the polls that are from people who never played or never intend to play the game.
Well, there are lots of people playing.
A drop in the game isn't really as big, because the people actively playing on a day-to-day in MO are going to keep playing. THey also make up the larger portion of the subscribers that want to actively subscribe.
I'm talking about people who have *no idea* about what's going on right now, because they gave up on the game MONTHS ago. And believe me, there are a lot of those. In my own guild I know three, plus several others who just played the first month and won't be re-subbing. We have a guildmember who went to Afghanistan and we've tried to email, but the odds are right now, Star Vault billed him without his knowledge. Heck, he doesn't even respond to friends he knows, why would he respond or see an email from a game he doesn't even care about?
That's what I meant -- these folks that haven't been here for months aren't going to vote on those polls. They won't be in the game in the last four weeks either, so there won't be a significant drop in population in game either.