Taking legal action against The Secret World

birdycephon · December 2012

Originally posted by Thenextbigthing
Originally posted by xeniar
You knew very well before lifetiming that in these times MMO's have a tendency of failing, meaning they might close down entirly or have to change how they do things.

Yes the small letters in the terms of service wil give all rights to do so to the company.

You knew it could happen yet you still lifetimed. don't come crying now.

I agree, everyone and his dog said taking out a lifetime sub thesedays is stupid. Pity the fools!

I agree, people need to really think before spending money they cannot afford to lose.

However, ther is nothing wrong with supporting a company, even though they might have done some thing that could be done better.

Emeraq · December 2012

What was the lifetime price on this game? 299.99? So, at best what would you hope to gain financially.. The game is 15.00 a month a t 7 months that is 105, box price is what 50.00-69.99+.. So let's say you ask for 144.99 refund, and let's say they grant it, but because of that, you now forfeit your lifetime benefits that they are offering (because you are revoked lifetime status for the refund)... You can continue to play for free but you now get no free content, no monthly rewards, nor free cash shop points...

Is that 144.99 refund worth more to you now? If so, by all means go for it, but you have no right to demand both, and in my opinion I don't think you even have a right to demand any form of refund, or legal ramifications to the company.

And if you are going to claim that F2P causes you mental/emotional duress and are seeking damages for that, you need to get some serious help.....

It's a game, you are going to get your money's worth PERIOD!

DingoBoi · December 2012

The other option was they could have simply shut down like APB after a month.

The OP seems to think the sub has no value... ironically after pointing out the value it does have.

Sure, a non-subber can buy issues at $5 or $10/month, but they don't get the bonus item or the xp item nor the $10 credit in points. It does have value regarless of whether you choose to value it or not.

Anyway, talk of a lawsuit is stupid when they've done nothing wrong.

But that isn't really your issue is it? You want more value than you perceive for subscribers/grandmasters. That's a whole different conversation.

Volnus · December 2012

All i am going to say is READ THE EULA. They have the right to change anything about the game and you agree to this the first time you start the game. So it will get no were Funcom has done nothing wrong so just close the post because it is a waste of space.

Alber_gamer · December 2012

You can take all the legal actions that you want, but you're still getting what you were promised for your lifetime subscription. Unlimited access to the videogame. Now others get it for free? Well, yeah. But that's none of your concern. Your contract is being fully fulfilled, and now you're getting free Funcom points on top.

Otherwise everyone could ask for refund on everything we buy that at some point ages and loses value.

DingoBoi · December 2012

I just saved a bunch on auto-insurance!

Indol · December 2012

Has your game experience changed?

Nitth · December 2012

Originally posted by Destac
All i am going to say is READ THE EULA. They have the right to change anything about the game and you agree to this the first time you start the game. So it will get no were Funcom has done nothing wrong so just close the post because it is a waste of space.

Go read the start of the thread.

Whitebeards · December 2012

Originally posted by Nitth

Originally posted by Destac
All i am going to say is READ THE EULA. They have the right to change anything about the game and you agree to this the first time you start the game. So it will get no were Funcom has done nothing wrong so just close the post because it is a waste of space.

Go read the start of the thread.

Start or end of the thread doesn't change the fact that this whole topic is ridiculous. All emoty threats and nothing more. OP and others are most welcome to move to the court, i would like to see how the case will stand before judge starts laughing his ass off.

Kingmob23 · December 2012

Originally posted by Caldicot
Originally posted by Kingmob23
When the game came out, I considered the lifetime subscription but then I thought it would probably go ftp in six months so I held off. With them going b2p, I got to say I am thrilled to have already purchased this game and am looking forward to start playing it again.

I'm not quite sure, based on how the market has been changing the last couple of years, what these lifetime subers thought was going to happen? It seemed obvious since beta that the outcome would tread along these lines.

Hindsight is pretty awesome stuff.

Actually, my intial analysis was based off of what has been trending in the mmorpg market for the past three years. I didn't have to rely on hindsight; common sense foresaw this outcome.

Rocketeer · December 2012

Wether or not the Eula holds up in court(and i don't thínk it would, they are usually sloppily written and don't respect european laws that well) is completely besides the point. Just because the EULA is invalid doesn't mean you get your money back, normal laws regarding trades still apply and what TSW is doing here isn't illegal.

A court would in all likelyhood completely disregard the EULA if you tried suing for a refund, since it wouldn't matter(refunds are governed by laws you can't forfeit in europe). EULAs only matter for refunds when they give you more rights than given by law and you are suing for those extraneous rights, but since they can't take away your basic rights they don't matter in this case.

So what would a judge look at?

1. Timeframe since purchase, you can't place certain claims if you have been using the product for a long time.

2. Did the product match the advertisement?

3. Since we are talking about a license, wether the agreed upon service still gets supplied.

You can disregard 1. and 2., they mainly apply for mismatching products. Like you order a Ferrari and get a Ford instead, or buying a new product and get a used one, that kind of thing. 3. Doesn't apply because your still getting the agreed service at the agreed price, but the fact that you could unsubscribe and get a similar service won't matter.

The way this would look in court would be that TSW is doing exactly what they agreed upon when you registered. They are fullfilling their contract with you. They didn't raise your subfee, they didn't take functions/content away from you. There is simply no basis for a lawsuit.

For a lawsuit to be realistic you need to have been wronged somehow, preferably in a financial way with fraudulent intent. Double charges on CC or charges for a banned account, taking away or ceasing to deliver something you paid for without refund, causing damage to your computer/privacy by negligence(virus, trojan etc). All of these can be a basis for a lawsuit. But giving someone else something for free that you had to pay for ... its simply not against the law.

Courts enforce the laws, not your sense of propriety. They didn't take anything away from you, instead they gave you more(stipend, free item per month etc). Would be tough to argue that you got wronged when nothing is missing and you actually get more than before.

Magiknight · December 2012

If you win then I will sue them too. I want my money back for the purchase price of the "game."

fallenlords · December 2012

Originally posted by Skuz
[mod edit]

So in the space of a few sentences you call people morons and mentally challenged. Then 'pontificate' about an issue that is a non-issue adding to the issue. Well that makes a lot of sense.

Good example of one sided moderation, call people what you like as long as your making a point that falls in with the general sentiment of the site. If I had posted anything along these sorts of lines I would of been facing yet another ban.

mysticaluna · December 2012

I don't regret buying lifetime lord of the rings online just because it went free to play premium, I was supporting a game and a business that I care for. Of course, it truly was a waste of money because it is now free, but it also isn't because I still get permanent full access VIP and free turbine points a month...

Now in terms of being buy to play, it does suck for lifetime subscribers, however, the only thing you can really do is give them exclusive lifetime only awards and free cash shop points monthly, because everything is unlocked and nothing is restricted... Wouldn't it be fair if they just gave you the subscription's value in cash shop points though? Of course, depending on sales you'd have to increase the points and probably give people something rediculous to make up for it, like 3,000 points a month or something...

Of course, they should give reimbursement option but you can't seriously blame a company for wanting to keep that money to stay afloat, handing it all back would cripple further growth building of the game...

Is the game truly less enjoyable as buy to play than it was with a subscription? You wanted to support it and bought lifetime, does that mean you want them to fail and cancel it now? They still need money to continue to grow and update, if you take yours back that's reducing game updates for everyone...

Dibdabs · December 2012

This emo thread needs locking.

SQTO · December 2012

So the mad lifetime people would rather the game go under and nobody play it ? because I am sure that is what would have happened if something didnt change.

Cryseyde · December 2012

Originally posted by SQTO
So the mad lifetime people would rather the game go under and nobody play it ? because I am sure that is what would have happened if something didnt change.

Yep, but those mad lifetime people are a vocal minority. A very small minority. I have a number of lifetimer friends who are more than happy with how it's been handled. I have a few friends who've bought the GMP this week because it is a good deal - actually better than what they promised us. But then again, those are people who will want at least small doses of fluff. If you're literally not ever interested in fluff ever, I can see why you'd think you got shafted. But then, all those folks had to do was look at the launches of Funcom's last two MMO titles to see if it was likely to be something they'd want. Seriously just smdh.

fallenlords · December 2012

I find it interesting that some people almost perceive Funcom as being blameless, like it's 'Buyer Beware'. It's the customers fault for believing in what they were being sold. No, its the morality of a company that would sell lifetime subscriptions in this current climate that should be brought into question.

Funcom built free to play functionality into the game from the start they admitted that, they always had an eye on the business model for the game changing. So they must of always planned to screw over those that bought lifetime subscriptions. I asked Joel specifically about the game going free to play, and he said 'not anytime soon' ... well it was quite soon after he said that the business model changed for the game. Joel blamed the suits for making a business decision, almost exonerating himself and the developers from the changes. But the functionality was there in the game for multiple business models and has been since day one... that was planned.

As a business they knew if TSW tanked they were in trouble. The Funcom financial reports put them in a negative cash flow situation until the TSW release. The ex-CEO showed his faith in the company on the eve of the TSW launch, still giving Funcom time to change things yet they carried on as if nothing was wrong. Selling their lifetime subs for a game they knew was already in trouble from the pre-order numbers. They could have gone buy to play at launch, they decided not to because they wanted to hang on to the money they had already made from mis-selling Lifetime subs and other packages.

Timing of this buy to play model is also very interesting as rumors of a takeover have already been floated. Buy to play will probably give them a nice surge in revenue to make the books look good and value the company higher. So I would question have they gone buy to play for the good of the game, as all the fans think, or for the good of the executives trying to sell or broker a takeover of the company?

I would look at this company as a stone cold business. They know exactly what they are doing and when they are doing it. They have plans for all sorts of eventualities. But one thing is for sure the customer will always be the last one to find out and will always be the one out of pocket.

scotty899 · December 2012

see what happend to kyle for not reading the contract before signing !!!!!!

ALWAYS READ THE FINE PRINT

Chtuga · December 2012

As a lifetime subscriber, I do feel im getting my money worth still. I am getting more bonuspoints and can get every piece of content for free plus a little bit more. I actually think I am getting more now than I did before....

Even more so, I prefer to play in a game full of other people, and the change of subscription model made the game full of people!

Im happy with the change!

Rocketeer · December 2012

Originally posted by fallenlords

I find it interesting that some people almost perceive Funcom as being blameless, like it's 'Buyer Beware'. It's the customers fault for believing in what they were being sold.    No, its the morality of a company that would sell lifetime subscriptions in this current climate that should be brought into question.

But customers want livetime offers. Every game i know that doesn't offers them has threads on forums constantly asking for them. Why is Fucom at a fault if they fill a demand thats already there?

Funcom built free to play functionality into the game from the start they admitted that, they always had an eye on the business model for the game changing. So they must of always planned to screw over those that bought lifetime subscriptions. I asked Joel specifically about the game going free to play, and he said 'not anytime soon' ... well it was quite soon after he said that the business model changed for the game. Joel blamed the suits for making a business decision, almost exonerating himself and the developers from the changes.    But the functionality was there in the game for multiple business models and has been since day one... that was planned.

They are still selling LTAs, LTAs are still being bought. How did they screw up past LTA customers? I wouldn't mind having a LTA with the current terms ...

As a business they knew if TSW tanked they were in trouble. The Funcom financial reports put them in a negative cash flow situation until the TSW release. The ex-CEO showed his faith in the company on the eve of the TSW launch, still giving Funcom time to change things yet they carried on as if nothing was wrong. Selling their lifetime subs for a game they knew was already in trouble from the pre-order numbers.   They could have gone buy to play at launch, they decided not to because they wanted to hang on to the money they had already made from mis-selling Lifetime subs and other packages.

Making money is the job of a company, you talk as if they have closed down the game already ... The game is still running a LTAs still have the same value in that they are a one time payment equivalent to a monthly 15$ sub. The only way LTAs will be worse off than subbers will be if they close the game down soonish.

Timing of this buy to play model is also very interesting as rumors of a takeover have already been floated.    Buy to play will probably give them a nice surge in revenue to make the books look good and value the company higher.   So I would question have they gone buy to play for the good of the game, as all the fans think, or for the good of the executives trying to sell or broker a takeover of the company?

Can't it be both? Also "making the books look good" by increasing sales and revenue ... that sure is a evil trick, bit transparent though as you can clearly see the increased revenue.

I would look at this company as a stone cold business. They know exactly what they are doing and when they are doing it. They have plans for all sorts of eventualities. But one thing is for sure the customer will always be the last one to find out and will always be the one out of pocket.

So essentially they are a company that knows their buisness? That description you gave could just aswell describe the Coca-Cola company, Intel, Apple or Exxon mobile. Its not exactly rocket science to guess that a private company is in it for the money.

The question you should ask yourself is wether the game is fun to you, and wether your prepared to pay for that fun. If the latter is affirmitive Funcom has provided several different way to approach it, each clearly lining out its costs, what you get and for how long.

I fail to see how what they are doing is shady or bad for customers. Looks like buisness as usual for me, and alot less shady than most at that(used car dealers, tabacco comapnies, rifle association etc).

Rocketeer · December 2012

Originally posted by fallenlords

I find it interesting that some people almost perceive Funcom as being blameless, like it's 'Buyer Beware'. It's the customers fault for believing in what they were being sold.    No, its the morality of a company that would sell lifetime subscriptions in this current climate that should be brought into question.

But customers want livetime offers. Every game i know that doesn't offers them has threads on forums constantly asking for them. Why is Fucom at a fault if they fill a demand thats already there?

Funcom built free to play functionality into the game from the start they admitted that, they always had an eye on the business model for the game changing. So they must of always planned to screw over those that bought lifetime subscriptions. I asked Joel specifically about the game going free to play, and he said 'not anytime soon' ... well it was quite soon after he said that the business model changed for the game. Joel blamed the suits for making a business decision, almost exonerating himself and the developers from the changes.    But the functionality was there in the game for multiple business models and has been since day one... that was planned.

They are still selling LTAs, LTAs are still being bought. How did they screw up past LTA customers? I wouldn't mind having a LTA with the current terms ...

As a business they knew if TSW tanked they were in trouble. The Funcom financial reports put them in a negative cash flow situation until the TSW release. The ex-CEO showed his faith in the company on the eve of the TSW launch, still giving Funcom time to change things yet they carried on as if nothing was wrong. Selling their lifetime subs for a game they knew was already in trouble from the pre-order numbers.   They could have gone buy to play at launch, they decided not to because they wanted to hang on to the money they had already made from mis-selling Lifetime subs and other packages.

Making money is the job of a company, you talk as if they have closed down the game already ... The game is still running a LTAs still have the same value in that they are a one time payment equivalent to a monthly 15$ sub. The only way LTAs will be worse off than subbers will be if they close the game down soonish.

Timing of this buy to play model is also very interesting as rumors of a takeover have already been floated.    Buy to play will probably give them a nice surge in revenue to make the books look good and value the company higher.   So I would question have they gone buy to play for the good of the game, as all the fans think, or for the good of the executives trying to sell or broker a takeover of the company?

Can't it be both? Also "making the books look good" by increasing sales and revenue ... that sure is a evil trick, bit transparent though as you can clearly see the increased revenue.

I would look at this company as a stone cold business. They know exactly what they are doing and when they are doing it. They have plans for all sorts of eventualities. But one thing is for sure the customer will always be the last one to find out and will always be the one out of pocket.

So essentially they are a company that knows their buisness? That description you gave could just aswell describe the Coca-Cola company, Intel, Apple or Exxon mobile. Its not exactly rocket science to guess that a private company is in it for the money.

The question you should ask yourself is wether the game is fun to you, and wether your prepared to pay for that fun. If the latter is affirmitive Funcom has provided several different way to approach it, each clearly lining out its costs, what you get and for how long.

I fail to see how what they are doing is shady or bad for customers. Looks like buisness as usual for me, and alot less shady than most at that(used car dealers, tabacco comapnies, rifle association etc).

Alberel · December 2012

Generally speaking consumer protection laws trump any 3rd party agreements every time. If a company sells you something then doesn't deliver what you paid for they have broken the law regardless of any agreements they force down your throat.

The OP has a valid point. He paid a subscription to get premium access to a service (the game) and now that premium access is no longer required despite his subscription fee covering outstanding time. Some fraction of his monthly subscription HAS been mis-sold. Yes, the new benefits of being a subscriber are quite nice but that doesn't change the fact that they are not what the OP paid for.

Think of it like this; you pay a subscription fee for your internet access on a monthly basis, suddenly in the middle of a month just after your most recent fee was paid your ISP decided to give the internet free to everyone. That means you paid for at least a week or so that everyone else got for free... So what if your ISP offers you a concilatory anti-virus subscription for your fee instead... that isn't what you paid for!

I don't think it's worth taking anyone to court over, but I do see the OP's point.

Rocketeer · December 2012

Originally posted by Alberel
Generally speaking consumer protection laws trump any 3rd party agreements every time. If a company sells you something then doesn't deliver what you paid for they have broken the law regardless of any agreements they force down your throat.

Very true, law > contracs/agreement.

The OP has a valid point. He paid a subscription to get premium access to a service (the game) and now that premium access is no longer required despite his subscription fee covering outstanding time. Some fraction of his monthly subscription HAS been mis-sold. Yes, the new benefits of being a subscriber are quite nice but that doesn't change the fact that they are not what the OP paid for.

I disagree. You still need a subscription to get the kind of access the op has under his sub plan. And im not sure what you mean with "some fraction ... mis-sold." What exactly is a mis-sold? And while the new benefits may not be why the OP bought the sub, they havn't taken away any of the old benefits. The fact that some part of whats covered by a sub before is now free is not a argument. Reducing a price on a service or part of a service is a prerogative of a company, even reducing the price down to zero. There are countless examples of companies reducing the price on part of their service.

Think of it like this; you pay a subscription fee for your internet access on a monthly basis, suddenly in the middle of a month just after your most recent fee was paid your ISP decided to give the internet free to everyone. That means you paid for at least a week or so that everyone else got for free... So what if your ISP offers you a concilatory anti-virus subscription for your fee instead... that isn't what you paid for!

Good example. I recently changed my interent plan from a 3mbit line for 45 bucks to a 16mbit plan for 35 bucks, i was in an old legacy plan that has been running for years and wasn't even being sold anymore. So in your example your ISP isn't offering you a concilatory anti-virus, he is fulfulling the contract exactly as you both agreed upon. If you commit yourself to a contract, wether it be 30 days or 24months, you are not entitled to any pricecuts during that time, on the other hand your provider also cannot raise your price during that time. This is the very same for anything be electrical bills, water supply, mobile plan or internet.

I don't think it's worth taking anyone to court over, but I do see the OP's point.

No offense intended, but sometimes i wonder how many of the people commenting in threads like this actually pay their own bills or have their own contracts running. Some notions are rather ... out there. I mean just take a look at mobile contracts. You have never seen during your 24 month lockout a newer plan coming out that included things you paid for? Like free SMS or minutes?

Or how about the christmas giveaway in the app store of apple every year. You buy a app today, tomorrow everyone gets it free. Or Steam sales and promotional items(reviewers get electronic gadgets for free for example), all of that is illegal? Really? Because someone gets something for free you had to pay for? You think thats against the law? Which law?

fallenlords · December 2012

Originally posted by Rocketeer
Originally posted by fallenlords

But customers want livetime offers. Every game i know that doesn't offers them has threads on forums constantly asking for them. Why is Fucom at a fault if they fill a demand thats already there?

You pick a business model and go with it fair enough, it doesn't work out and you have to change... again fair enough. But you hedge your bets right from the start, that shows you as a company have no faith in the initial model you have chosen. Getting it wrong is fair enough, covering all bases in readiness I think shows pre-planned preparation that brings into question the selling of lifetime subscriptions or subscriptions at all. People may want lifetime subs but they want them for subscription based games, not necessarily buy to play, free to play. If the contract/agreement changes the customers should be given more than one option. Funcom should offer any dissatisfied customer more than one option, to my mind a refund in they are not happy with the new arrangement. But they won't because they need the money.

Even on the eve of launch with pre-order figures staring them in their face and their CEO doing a bunk trying to sell off his shares they carried on as normal. As a business that is beholding to customers surely that would of been a time to re-evaluate things. Well no I suppose not, if you don't give a fig about your customers.

They are still selling LTAs, LTAs are still being bought. How did they screw up past LTA customers? I wouldn't mind having a LTA with the current terms ...

And you would have to be a fool to buy one, in my opinion, a fool to give this rather unstable company any money at all. THQ have just gone chapter 11 I don't know if there is a Norway equivalent but if I was a customer I would find out. The overall climate for game companies that are struggling is not good.

The current buy to play has had a little bit of an impact on the Funcom share price, ordinarily I would say great. But with Funcom I am not sure of their motives. Joel has already stated the suits make the business decisions... passing the buck to my mind. But what is their plan? Are they fighting to keep the game going or looking to improve share price prior to takeover/sale. This could all be a cash grab and they close shop. Are they offering any guarantees, are they engaging the users as to the state of things. No, Funcom have always been very secretive. They only released the sale numbers on TSW because shareholders 'forced' them to do so.

Making money is the job of a company, you talk as if they have closed down the game already ... The game is still running a LTAs still have the same value in that they are a one time payment equivalent to a monthly 15$ sub. The only way LTAs will be worse off than subbers will be if they close the game down soonish.

Yes making money is the job of any company but not at the expense of your customers...well not if there is anything about them. Key to any good business is keeping your customers happy, repeat business. They went to no effort at all really with existing lifetime subs when they changed things, they just dictated terms. Not good business practice. Indicates that as a company you are dealing with the same old Funcom, regardless of the change in personnel.

Can't it be both? Also "making the books look good" by increasing sales and revenue ... that sure is a evil trick, bit transparent though as you can clearly see the increased revenue.

All depends according to one post they have engaged the services of people who deal with takeovers, mergers and valuations of companies. Funcom as a company have never and will never give you any insight into their long term plans. Company could be sold in the New Year and TSW might cease to exist. New company has no responsibility to the old customers. Forget the image of a struggling developer trying to keep the game going for the good of the players. I think that's a false image they like to portray.

So essentially they are a company that knows their buisness? That description you gave could just aswell describe the Coca-Cola company, Intel, Apple or Exxon mobile. Its not exactly rocket science to guess that a private company is in it for the money.
Yes they know their business to an extent, but they are treading water and have been for a considerable number of years. All I am warning people about is forget this image people have in their heads of hard done independent developer Funcom trying to limp along with the game they love at all costs. Look at what has been happening around the company, the morals of the people who have been in charge. Their past history towards customers. This is not a customer focussed business in any sense.

I fail to see how what they are doing is shady or bad for customers. Looks like buisness as usual for me, and alot less shady than most at that(used car dealers, tabacco comapnies, rifle association etc).

Well it depends on their plans. If they are just looking to keep the game going fair enough. But is that their motive? Only time will tell. Us naysayers and anti Funcom lot have always got it wrong so as a customer I wouldn't worry too much.

Howdy, Stranger!

Taking legal action against The Secret World

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Taking legal action against The Secret World

Comments