Originally posted by Aztec Despite some opposition I still know my feelings on the matter are correct for me. I feel robbed and kicked in the ballz. You should never put the customer in such a position. This is business etiquette 101. People in this new generation are used to that I guess. I remember a time were companies cherished their customers and planned and thought ahead to avoid these issues from being created. SOE's gross incompetence is not my problem. I did file a chargeback today and I wash my hands of this company and their shady practices. Thanks for your input on the matter.
You got what you paid for. You are committing credit fraud with a chargeback, as chargebacks are for fraudulent charges against your account. You could instead contact SOE and see if they will credit you the balance of the discount.
Categorically incorrect.
In the US at least, so long as a product is "pre-release" or "alpha/beta" for software, a customer is literally entitled to a refund.
While this customer could have contacted SOE for a refund, (and SOE would have been required to offer a refund) the end result is the same. So, meh.
And further, a customer is not required to stay on the phone for 3 hours with customer service, while they talk you out of trying to get a refund. Just call it "unable to reach a resolution" with the vendor after spending 20 mins on hold. Which is a valid reason for a chargeback.
This is the risk that these software companies run by pre-selling alpha/beta access to unfinished games. They want the early and big money, they are on the hook to refund literally everyone before the game "launches".
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Chargebacks can also be contested by the company they were issued against.
All they have to do is prove they provided the service as advertised, which in this case is "Digital access to the product which was consumed by the customer" and your bank will then reverse the chargeback.
Its also fraudulent to seek a chargeback on something if you do not have legitimate grounds, which are not limited to
False advertising
Failure to supply goods and or services as promised in the event of full payment where such services are reasonably practical to be provided.
Withdrawment from the agreement to provide services without suitable notice except where implied in the agreement of sale (Your EULA).
Goods or services not fit for the purpose in which they were sold.
Putting a chargeback through because of buyers regret is simply fraud, most companies will eat up small amounts of it and simply sanction the account that issued them, but many can and do successfully contest chargebacks in the majority of cases.
Not that I am stating a point of view on the original issue, I think sales happen life sucks, yes putting a game on sale before its even released is something that is a bit weird, but considering beta is coming to an end in the next few months, not wholly unsurprising. But spreading false information about what chargebacks are is rather bad form, if the guy or gal follows your instructions and ends up being countered with a fraud suit then they have only them selves to blame.
TLDR Chargebacks are not the same as a "refund" and "Unable to reach agreement with vendor" is a reasonable excuse if the vendor is refusing to provide the goods or services as advertised, not when its simply a case of buyers regret.
Perhaps I need to make it more simple for you: Under US consumer protection law, all customers are legally entitled to a refund for pre-release software, regardless of the cause, period.
All it needs to be, is "alpha/beta" and that is it.
The customer is ENTITLED to a refund, no matter what any EULA says. No EULA can violate a consumers rights and stand up.
None of that other stuff you said, matters, in the face of that, so long as the customer "attempted to get a refund" to which he/she is entitled. And that could be a couple busy signals on the CS line. Again, because it is an "alpha/beta" product and thus not complete in the eyes of the law. That is enough.
If the customer were "nice" he could have tried harder to save SOE the chargeback fee, but he isn't really required to do that either.
Yeah, consumer rights are a terrible thing, right?
(And I have dealt with these issue a number of times in my RL job, and it is EXACTLY this way.)
What law is this? I'm not aware of any federal U.S. law that covers the purchase of pre-release software. There may be some individual state laws out there covering it, but I've never heard of a federal law that deals with it.
Looks like you have never played a SOE game, they have sales like these all the time. Plus its not SOE's fault you decided to get the founders pack so late, its been out for months now, what do you expect its a business model they need to make money some how when the sales drop.
Originally posted by Aztec Despite some opposition I still know my feelings on the matter are correct for me. I feel robbed and kicked in the ballz. You should never put the customer in such a position. This is business etiquette 101. People in this new generation are used to that I guess. I remember a time were companies cherished their customers and planned and thought ahead to avoid these issues from being created. SOE's gross incompetence is not my problem. I did file a chargeback today and I wash my hands of this company and their shady practices. Thanks for your input on the matter.
You got what you paid for. You are committing credit fraud with a chargeback, as chargebacks are for fraudulent charges against your account. You could instead contact SOE and see if they will credit you the balance of the discount.
Categorically incorrect.
In the US at least, so long as a product is "pre-release" or "alpha/beta" for software, a customer is literally entitled to a refund.
While this customer could have contacted SOE for a refund, (and SOE would have been required to offer a refund) the end result is the same. So, meh.
And further, a customer is not required to stay on the phone for 3 hours with customer service, while they talk you out of trying to get a refund. Just call it "unable to reach a resolution" with the vendor after spending 20 mins on hold. Which is a valid reason for a chargeback.
This is the risk that these software companies run by pre-selling alpha/beta access to unfinished games. They want the early and big money, they are on the hook to refund literally everyone before the game "launches".
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Chargebacks can also be contested by the company they were issued against.
All they have to do is prove they provided the service as advertised, which in this case is "Digital access to the product which was consumed by the customer" and your bank will then reverse the chargeback.
Its also fraudulent to seek a chargeback on something if you do not have legitimate grounds, which are not limited to
False advertising
Failure to supply goods and or services as promised in the event of full payment where such services are reasonably practical to be provided.
Withdrawment from the agreement to provide services without suitable notice except where implied in the agreement of sale (Your EULA).
Goods or services not fit for the purpose in which they were sold.
Putting a chargeback through because of buyers regret is simply fraud, most companies will eat up small amounts of it and simply sanction the account that issued them, but many can and do successfully contest chargebacks in the majority of cases.
Not that I am stating a point of view on the original issue, I think sales happen life sucks, yes putting a game on sale before its even released is something that is a bit weird, but considering beta is coming to an end in the next few months, not wholly unsurprising. But spreading false information about what chargebacks are is rather bad form, if the guy or gal follows your instructions and ends up being countered with a fraud suit then they have only them selves to blame.
TLDR Chargebacks are not the same as a "refund" and "Unable to reach agreement with vendor" is a reasonable excuse if the vendor is refusing to provide the goods or services as advertised, not when its simply a case of buyers regret.
Perhaps I need to make it more simple for you: Under US consumer protection law, all customers are legally entitled to a refund for pre-release software, regardless of the cause, period.
All it needs to be, is "alpha/beta" and that is it.
The customer is ENTITLED to a refund, no matter what any EULA says. No EULA can violate a consumers rights and stand up.
None of that other stuff you said, matters, in the face of that, so long as the customer "attempted to get a refund" to which he/she is entitled. And that could be a couple busy signals on the CS line. Again, because it is an "alpha/beta" product and thus not complete in the eyes of the law. That is enough.
If the customer were "nice" he could have tried harder to save SOE the chargeback fee, but he isn't really required to do that either.
Yeah, consumer rights are a terrible thing, right?
(And I have dealt with these issue a number of times in my RL job, and it is EXACTLY this way.)
What law is this? I'm not aware of any federal U.S. law that covers the purchase of pre-release software. There may be some individual state laws out there covering it, but I've never heard of a federal law that deals with it.
Cited some FTC stuff above, I do not have the direct case citations here at home.
Federal Trade Commission Statement. In a phone call on 11 September 2008, a Federal Trade Commission representative stated the following, “I’m not aware of any Federal law stating that software can’t be returned. I’ve just searched my database and can’t find anything. I’ve never heard of it before.” [Source: Cindy, last name withheld for privacy] Documents available on the Federal Trade Commission website include the following statements regarding software returns.
“… that the right to refund can be satisfied by a legal requirement, and that legal requirement is UCITA itself. So, automatically it will say in mass market licensing you have a right to refund. There is a right to refund under UCITA…” (Source: Symposium Transcript, 27 October 2000, page 308, lines 4-8) [PDF]
“…if you bought software as a consumer or as a small business under certain circumstances and the software doesn’t work, you can go back to the manufacturer or back to the retailer and demand a refund, just as you can get a refund for a tangible good that doesn’t work.” (Source: SymposiumTranscript, 27 October 2000, page 315, 11-16) [PDF]
By extension, it is assumed that no alpha/beta product is complete, does everything advertised, and works completely, thus, the requirement for a universal (or nearly so) refund for alpha/beta software. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RELEASED YET!
Here is the summary for the whole entry:
Summary. According to the U.S. Government Federal Trade Commission, consumers have the legal right to return software for a full refund (or perhaps in-store credit) if it is defective, or does not work on their computer, or if it did not perform as advertised, or if they simply decide that for any reason they were not completely satisfied with the product. The validity of this fact is demonstrated by the prevalence of resellers and software manufacturers who offer a 100% money back satisfaction guarantee on their software.
Edit: added summary statement from the FTC
These cite the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act, which doesn't actually exist. I'm just copy pasting this from Wikipedia:
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) was an attempt to introduce a Uniform Act for US States to follow. As a model law, it only specifies a set of guidelines, and each of the States should decide if to pass it or not, separately. UCITA has been drafted by National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL).[1]
UCITA has been designed to clarify issues which were not addressed by existing Uniform Commercial Code. "Few disagree that the current Uniform Commercial Code is ill-suited for use with licensing and other intangible transactions," said practicing attorney Alan Fisch.[2]
UCITA has faced severe opposition from various groups.[3][4][5]
UCITA has only been passed in two states, Virginia and Maryland. The law did not pass in other states.[2] Nevertheless, legal scholars, such as noted commercial law professor Jean Braucher, believe that the UCITA offers academic value.[2]
So, it looks like Virginia and Maryland have robust consumer protection laws when it comes to software, but the FTC citation is based on what would have been if the law had been passed in all 50 states.
Federal Trade Commission Statement. In a phone call on 11 September 2008, a Federal Trade Commission representative stated the following, “I’m not aware of any Federal law stating that software can’t be returned. I’ve just searched my database and can’t find anything. I’ve never heard of it before.” [Source: Cindy, last name withheld for privacy] Documents available on the Federal Trade Commission website include the following statements regarding software returns.
“… that the right to refund can be satisfied by a legal requirement, and that legal requirement is UCITA itself. So, automatically it will say in mass market licensing you have a right to refund. There is a right to refund under UCITA…” (Source: Symposium Transcript, 27 October 2000, page 308, lines 4-8) [PDF]
“…if you bought software as a consumer or as a small business under certain circumstances and the software doesn’t work, you can go back to the manufacturer or back to the retailer and demand a refund, just as you can get a refund for a tangible good that doesn’t work.” (Source: SymposiumTranscript, 27 October 2000, page 315, 11-16) [PDF]
By extension, it is assumed that no alpha/beta product is complete, does everything advertised, and works completely, thus, the requirement for a universal (or nearly so) refund for alpha/beta software. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RELEASED YET!
Here is the summary for the whole entry:
Summary. According to the U.S. Government Federal Trade Commission, consumers have the legal right to return software for a full refund (or perhaps in-store credit) if it is defective, or does not work on their computer, or if it did not perform as advertised, or if they simply decide that for any reason they were not completely satisfied with the product. The validity of this fact is demonstrated by the prevalence of resellers and software manufacturers who offer a 100% money back satisfaction guarantee on their software.
Edit: added summary statement from the FTC
I swear, I'm not trying to be a forum stalker, but looking at your profile, you appear to be from Maryland, which appears to have some very robust consumer protection laws, including software. What you cited above would apply to Maryland, and Virginia because they did pass UCITA, but unfortunately it wasn't a federal law and only applies to those states that passed it. It does, however, make me want to move to Virginia or Maryland, if for no other reason than the strong consumer protection laws.
Ok, so you willingly paid 100 dollars for a product. If they gave you exactly what they said they would for your 100 dollars you don't have any legal ground, they didn't rip you off. So unless you can prove they told you somewhere that no one would be able to get the stuff in the founders pack for cheaper than 100 dollars I'm not really sure what your pissed off about.
Federal Trade Commission Statement. In a phone call on 11 September 2008, a Federal Trade Commission representative stated the following, “I’m not aware of any Federal law stating that software can’t be returned. I’ve just searched my database and can’t find anything. I’ve never heard of it before.” [Source: Cindy, last name withheld for privacy] Documents available on the Federal Trade Commission website include the following statements regarding software returns.
“… that the right to refund can be satisfied by a legal requirement, and that legal requirement is UCITA itself. So, automatically it will say in mass market licensing you have a right to refund. There is a right to refund under UCITA…” (Source: Symposium Transcript, 27 October 2000, page 308, lines 4-8) [PDF]
“…if you bought software as a consumer or as a small business under certain circumstances and the software doesn’t work, you can go back to the manufacturer or back to the retailer and demand a refund, just as you can get a refund for a tangible good that doesn’t work.” (Source: SymposiumTranscript, 27 October 2000, page 315, 11-16) [PDF]
By extension, it is assumed that no alpha/beta product is complete, does everything advertised, and works completely, thus, the requirement for a universal (or nearly so) refund for alpha/beta software. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RELEASED YET!
Here is the summary for the whole entry:
Summary. According to the U.S. Government Federal Trade Commission, consumers have the legal right to return software for a full refund (or perhaps in-store credit) if it is defective, or does not work on their computer, or if it did not perform as advertised, or if they simply decide that for any reason they were not completely satisfied with the product. The validity of this fact is demonstrated by the prevalence of resellers and software manufacturers who offer a 100% money back satisfaction guarantee on their software.
Edit: added summary statement from the FTC
You are actually not buying Alpha Access. You are given Alpha Access. You purchase a founder packs which I bet they can label as Donation. You can not get a refund on a Donation.
You are actually not buying Alpha Access. You are given Alpha Access. You purchase a founder packs which I bet they can label as Donation. You can not get a refund on a Donation.
I study a bit of law when it comes to traffic laws. I realize this makes me far from an expert but I do understand how the system works via legalese definitions. I highly doubt that they labelled it all as donation for legal purposes. Therefore your point on not refunding a donation would be moot.
I sympathize with those who chose to support this game only to find out the same exact thing they bought is now on sale for -66% off before it's even released.
There's a huge difference between buying a game for $60, and seeing it on sale for $20-30 a year or two later. That's not unfair - that's not poor business practice. But jacking down the price to this extent - without even having a release date on the game - basically sends a message to anyone who bought the game before: "Well now, don't *you* feel like an asshole?"
It does feel wrong and, were I in their position, I would feel a bit cheated. And I probably would never buy another Sony product or service again. And if asked why, I'll just say: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me - I'll just wait for it to be 66% off."
You are actually not buying Alpha Access. You are given Alpha Access. You purchase a founder packs which I bet they can label as Donation. You can not get a refund on a Donation.
I study a bit of law when it comes to traffic laws. I realize this makes me far from an expert but I do understand how the system works via legalese definitions. I highly doubt that they labelled it all as donation for legal purposes. Therefore your point on not refunding a donation would be moot.
Why do you highly doubt that? These are F2P games so you cant be buying the game. What are you buying?
There was a reason I never invested in this current SOE project. As someone who has subscribed to them over the years I learned my lesson from Star Wars Galaxies. I may still give this game a go. Only after it is released.
I feel bad for those who are newer to SOE. For they are truly feeling the pain. I am glad Sony's PS console system SOE does not work with the PC SOE.
My sympathies to those who were burned by SOE. Now you know they do it! Lesson learned. Always be wary of SOE :-)
You are actually not buying Alpha Access. You are given Alpha Access. You purchase a founder packs which I bet they can label as Donation. You can not get a refund on a Donation.
I study a bit of law when it comes to traffic laws. I realize this makes me far from an expert but I do understand how the system works via legalese definitions. I highly doubt that they labelled it all as donation for legal purposes. Therefore your point on not refunding a donation would be moot.
Why do you highly doubt that? These are F2P games so you cant be buying the game. What are you buying?
Stop with the supposition and get me some facts then we can talk about it.
YOU CAN GET A REFUND UP TO 90 DAYS no matter what. I purchased one and got a refund 3 weeks later. Stop spreading lies if someone paid $100 2 weeks ago they can request a refund and just rebuy it.
LOL cmon now your gonna ruin the OP's whinefest :P
There was a reason I never invested in this current SOE project. As someone who has subscribed to them over the years I learned my lesson from Star Wars Galaxies. I may still give this game a go. Only after it is released.
I feel bad for those who are newer to SOE. For they are truly feeling the pain. I am glad Sony's PS console system SOE does not work with the PC SOE.
My sympathies to those who were burned by SOE. Now you know they do it! Lesson learned. Always be wary of SOE :-)
Quick call the whaaaaaaammmmbulance.... SWG ruined my lifeeeeeeeee!!!!!!
You are actually not buying Alpha Access. You are given Alpha Access. You purchase a founder packs which I bet they can label as Donation. You can not get a refund on a Donation.
I study a bit of law when it comes to traffic laws. I realize this makes me far from an expert but I do understand how the system works via legalese definitions. I highly doubt that they labelled it all as donation for legal purposes. Therefore your point on not refunding a donation would be moot.
Why do you highly doubt that? These are F2P games so you cant be buying the game. What are you buying?
Stop with the supposition and get me some facts then we can talk about it.
You are the one who purchased it not me. Where does it say its a game you are paying for?
Never was the words exclusive used. Never were they indicating this would not be put out at a reduced price. Sorry but its like me paying $1,000.00 shelf price for those brand new Blu-ray players when they were first released and someone finds the same thing on sale for $500.00. I am still getting to watch that Blu-ray I am wanting to watch no? Think of what you will of Sony but things go on sale all the time. In no way is it Sony's obligation in order to disclose at what point they are going to offer up things at reduced prices. I really have to wonder why it is that everyone ends up thinking they are required to get something that no one else has just because they spend money on a virtual product. In real life I wait, do research, and buy items at a time that its a good deal for me. Just a thought for peoples future online purchases, buy them when your comfortable with in regards to the items and the deal of the money you are spending then stop worrying about what others get/don't get.
I spent 20 bucks on the game, and honestly im not mad at the sale going on. i got to play it longer then those who waited for the sale. Sure i spent 20 bucks and its only 20 bucks but in the end i got more then 20 bucks worth of entertainment.
free 7 day sub and unlocks for swtor new accounts and 90+ day inactive subs click here to get it!
I paid $100 for my Landmark Alpha access and I am happy I did it. I consider Landmark as one of the successful Kickstarter project (yes I know it is not a kickstart project). Packs at a discount? Great more people can get in on the fun. I welcome you all!!
Originally posted by Aztec SOE just ripped off all the founders of the game by making a 66% off sale for all founders packs. Most of these people paid 100- bucks for something that is now 33-. SOE does not even care and is covering up the rage on their forums by banning everyone who speaks negatively about the 66% off sale. One would think that SOE would not be so stupid as to alienate their loyal customers but they are. I just left them for good as this is probably how they will handle most situations, poorly.
Suits those right who spend $100 to help a big name company fund a games development.
Getting into the beta for $7 today was pretty cool to.
You know that those people who bought into the game early on sale are going to be upset when it goes on sale yet again, for an even more reduced price. ;0
========================== The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.
Comments
What law is this? I'm not aware of any federal U.S. law that covers the purchase of pre-release software. There may be some individual state laws out there covering it, but I've never heard of a federal law that deals with it.
Cited some FTC stuff above, I do not have the direct case citations here at home.
These cite the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act, which doesn't actually exist. I'm just copy pasting this from Wikipedia:
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) was an attempt to introduce a Uniform Act for US States to follow. As a model law, it only specifies a set of guidelines, and each of the States should decide if to pass it or not, separately. UCITA has been drafted by National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL).[1]
UCITA has been designed to clarify issues which were not addressed by existing Uniform Commercial Code. "Few disagree that the current Uniform Commercial Code is ill-suited for use with licensing and other intangible transactions," said practicing attorney Alan Fisch.[2]
UCITA has faced severe opposition from various groups.[3][4][5]
UCITA has only been passed in two states, Virginia and Maryland. The law did not pass in other states.[2] Nevertheless, legal scholars, such as noted commercial law professor Jean Braucher, believe that the UCITA offers academic value.[2]
So, it looks like Virginia and Maryland have robust consumer protection laws when it comes to software, but the FTC citation is based on what would have been if the law had been passed in all 50 states.
I swear, I'm not trying to be a forum stalker, but looking at your profile, you appear to be from Maryland, which appears to have some very robust consumer protection laws, including software. What you cited above would apply to Maryland, and Virginia because they did pass UCITA, but unfortunately it wasn't a federal law and only applies to those states that passed it. It does, however, make me want to move to Virginia or Maryland, if for no other reason than the strong consumer protection laws.
I gave up on anything related to EQN when they basically hinted towards a sucky game based on their responses to the polls.
Kind of funny the polls sound a lot like Elder Scrolls.
Multiple guilds
Fast travel (to your friends, group, and just in general)
Small death penalty
Buyback window
Friends list garbage
Master all crafts
Modable UI
All races all classes
Use all weapons and armor
Their advance AI... eso the mobs jumped behind you.
The game was less EQ and more garbage we already have and are bored with.
You are actually not buying Alpha Access. You are given Alpha Access. You purchase a founder packs which I bet they can label as Donation. You can not get a refund on a Donation.
I study a bit of law when it comes to traffic laws. I realize this makes me far from an expert but I do understand how the system works via legalese definitions. I highly doubt that they labelled it all as donation for legal purposes. Therefore your point on not refunding a donation would be moot.
I sympathize with those who chose to support this game only to find out the same exact thing they bought is now on sale for -66% off before it's even released.
There's a huge difference between buying a game for $60, and seeing it on sale for $20-30 a year or two later. That's not unfair - that's not poor business practice. But jacking down the price to this extent - without even having a release date on the game - basically sends a message to anyone who bought the game before: "Well now, don't *you* feel like an asshole?"
It does feel wrong and, were I in their position, I would feel a bit cheated. And I probably would never buy another Sony product or service again. And if asked why, I'll just say: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me - I'll just wait for it to be 66% off."
Why do you highly doubt that? These are F2P games so you cant be buying the game. What are you buying?
There was a reason I never invested in this current SOE project. As someone who has subscribed to them over the years I learned my lesson from Star Wars Galaxies. I may still give this game a go. Only after it is released.
I feel bad for those who are newer to SOE. For they are truly feeling the pain. I am glad Sony's PS console system SOE does not work with the PC SOE.
My sympathies to those who were burned by SOE. Now you know they do it! Lesson learned. Always be wary of SOE :-)
Stop with the supposition and get me some facts then we can talk about it.
LOL cmon now your gonna ruin the OP's whinefest :P
Quick call the whaaaaaaammmmbulance.... SWG ruined my lifeeeeeeeee!!!!!!
You are the one who purchased it not me. Where does it say its a game you are paying for?
Anybody who pays crazy money to play Alpha or Beta deserve to be ripped off.
Thanks for testing the game for the rest of us.
free 7 day sub and unlocks for swtor new accounts and 90+ day inactive subs click here to get it!
Click here for trove referral, bonuses to both!
who pays to be a beta tester?
Remember the days when beta testers got paid?
I just feel like making donkey sounds would be appropriate.
The day I'll pay 100$ to play some wonky alpha beta whatnot developer demo is the day hell will freeze over.
And by that I mean, never
That's ok, I'm pretty sure it's more fun without you anyways. =D
We all stand by our convictions, until Jaws Online appears on Kickstarter.
SWTOR Referral Link
Free Goodies for new or returning players.
See what it gets you Here
Suits those right who spend $100 to help a big name company fund a games development.
Getting into the beta for $7 today was pretty cool to.
==========================
The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.