37 replies to this topic

[Boarneges]

I never did understand this whole refund business.

People have paid good money to get either MC or their Founders Packages, I get that. And they could end up disappointed later and regret their decision to do so, that's easy enough to understand aswell. What I fail to understand though, is why people think they have any case for a refund. If you buy a game off the shelf and end up not liking it, you wouldn't get a refund. Why should you get one now?

Only difference I see is that the game you bought off the shelf is a finished product that's unlikely to improve, while this is a work in progress. Why would you not want a refund for something you know is bad, but demand one for a comparable product that might end up great in the end? You've already lost the money, why not wait for it to come good?

Patience is a virtue after all. Shame so little people around here seem to understand that.

Edit: Typo.

Edited by Boarneges, 25 April 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[Sadistic Savior]

Cyke, on 25 April 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

Probably generally a good idea not to spend money you're not willing to lose on F2P kickstarted games.

Which a lot of people are. The OP is in the minority. Even his sympathizers in this thread are still willing to pay money for a beta product.

PGI could probably earn points with their customers by offering him a refund, but i do not think they are legally or ethically obligated to do so. They were very honest about what they were selling him. Everything was spelled out up front.

[TurinAlexander]

Cyke, on 25 April 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

It's not a matter of people not liking it, it's a matter of false advertising. It's someone paying for one thing, and getting another.
I'm not sure, does the current EULA have the famous EA clause of claiming immunity from class-action lawsuits as well?

Let me state this though: If someone bought the MC after the consumables were announced (and added), and after the possibility of 3rd person was announced, then even I don't think they should get their money back.
If a person knew for sure the game was already going in a direction they didn't like, and still paid for MC, you don't get to complain at some arbitrary later point in time and ask for a refund..

None of that even matters. When buying MC, that is all that you are buying. Whether or not you approve of the direction the game is going has no bearing on that transaction. The only way you could reasonably claim fraud is if you paid for a certain amount MC at the price you agreed to pay for it, and recieved a lesser quantity, or none at all. Even then, you would have had to take reasonable steps to have the situation corrected before trying a charge back.

[Barghest Whelp]

Cyke, on 25 April 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

It's not a matter of people not liking it, it's a matter of false advertising. It's someone paying for one thing, and getting another.
I'm not sure, does the current EULA have the famous EA clause of claiming immunity from class-action lawsuits as well?

Let me state this though: If someone bought the MC after the consumables were announced (and added), and after the possibility of 3rd person was announced, then even I don't think they should get their money back.
If a person knew for sure the game was already going in a direction they didn't like, and still paid for MC, you don't get to complain at some arbitrary later point in time and ask for a refund..

Yes, now the thing is, they could actually write that you aren't allowed to breathe air in the EULA, and the EULA would not be considered illegal. But I don't think you need a lawyers degree in order to understand that if that was ever tried in a court of law, it would be stricken from the agreement.

Basically the rule of thumb here is, the more absurd or unreasonable the statement, the more likely a judge is to invalidate said statement. So I'd say the OP actually has a more or less reasonable chance of getting a the sympahy of a judge, considering that it's a breach of consumers rights in more or less every country in the modern western world.

Just because you agree to something does not mean you forfeit your consumers rights. If you don't believe me, check out the lovely deal that EA got on their sports games (yes, all of them). If you own one or more, go claim back your money already.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Boarneges, on 25 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

I never did understand this whole refund business.

People have paid good money to get either MC or their Founders Packages, I get that. And they could end up disappointed later and regret their decision to do so, that's easy enough to understand aswell. What I fail to understand though, is why people think they have any case for a refund. If you buy a game off the shelf and end up not liking it, you wouldn't get a refund. Why should you get one now?

Only difference I see is that the game you bought off the shelf is a finished product that's unlikely to improve, while this is a work in progress. Why would you not want a refund for something you know is bad, but demand one for a comparable product that might end up great in the end? You've already lost the money, why not wait for it to come good?

Patience is a virtue after all. Shame so little people around here seem to understand that.

Edit: Typo.

No third person.. now third person, no coolant... now we have coolant. They said the first part during the founders program then did the later. Any other questions?

[Alois Hammer]

Cyke, on 25 April 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

It's not a matter of people not liking it, it's a matter of false advertising. It's someone paying for one thing, and getting another.

And according to the OP, the issue is he paid for MC and got MC. So any attempt at legal action on the "false advertising" rationale amounts to the same thing as trying to sue Domino's because you ordered a pizza and they sent you...a pizza.

Cyke, on 25 April 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Let me state this though: If someone bought the MC after the consumables were announced (and added), and after the possibility of 3rd person was announced, then even I don't think they should get their money back.

So let's look here...

Lindonius, on 24 April 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

What I want to know is whether or not there is a cool down period and if I can get a refund on the MC I bought only 3 days ago?

[Boarneges]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 25 April 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

No third person.. now third person, no coolant... now we have coolant. They said the first part during the founders program then did the later. Any other questions?

Lots of games go through plenty of changes during their beta periods. I'll admit some of these are fairly big and will certainly have their impact, but that doesn't change the point I'm trying to make. Besides, MMO's are subject to change, whether you like it or not. In fact, the ever-changing content and gameplay are probably some of the biggest differences with your standard "completed" games. There will always be a need to add, remove or adapt certain features to keep the game going and some of these will be more popular than others. I don't see anyone complaining when they add a new map or 'Mech, for example.

I'm well aware that the game right now isn't without its flaws, but I'm sure things'll come good in the end. If there's anything PGI have done wrong, it's that they entered closed (and open) beta too early in development. Too much work to be done still and far too many (impatient) people complaining constantly and trying their very best to criticize every single decision they make.

Think of it this way: how'd you like it if your boss was constantly watching over your shoulder and going "This is bad", "That sucks", "You screwed that one up again", etcetera. Don't know about you, but I wouldn't like it very much. I'm not saying criticism is bad, but atleast make sure it's the supportive kind. People tend to get stuff done faster and better when you're being supportive rather than breaking their every move down constantly.

Edited by Boarneges, 26 April 2013 - 06:14 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Boarneges, on 26 April 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

Lots of games go through plenty of changes during their beta periods. I'll admit some of these are fairly big and will certainly have their impact, but that doesn't change the point I'm trying to make. Besides, MMO's are subject to change, whether you like it or not. In fact, the ever-changing content and gameplay are probably some of the biggest differences with your standard "completed" games. There will always be a need to add, remove or adapt certain features to keep the game going and some of these will be more popular than others. I don't see anyone complaining when they add a new map or 'Mech, for example.

I think you are completely missing what people are so upset about. When you promise to make a game based on certain rules, you are not supposed to change those rules at a whim. I.e. a chess game has to follow the rules of chess, a football simulation has to follow the rules of football, etc. PGI initially promised to stay as close to TT rules as possible, then promptly broke that promise, which resulted in a completely messed up game balance.
People don't complain about Hawken not following BT rules - they never promised to do so, people didn't complain about about Huttball warzone in SWTOR only being loosely based on football - it was never supposed to be a football sim, but people do complain about MWO deviating too far from classic BT - staying close to the original was one of the major selling points for Founders program.
Nobody complains about lasers being DoT for example - that's part of the conversion from board game to sim and had to be done, but a lot of changes (i.e. if you wanted to make a list, it would be more than a page long) were made for no obvious reason and eventually resulted in "PPC Warrior Online" game we currently have.

Quote

Think of it this way: how'd you like it if your boss was constantly watching over your shoulder and going "This is bad", "That sucks", "You screwed that one up again", etcetera. Don't know about you, but I wouldn't like it very much. I'm not saying criticism is bad, but atleast make sure it's the supportive kind. People tend to get stuff done faster and better when you're being supportive rather than breaking their every move down constantly.

We are not talking about management telling you "that sucks" - we are talking about customers telling you "this sucks", and that's the whole point of having customer feedback. If my client tells me "this is bad", then it is indeed bad and needs to be fixed - they pay for the project, so they tell me what the end result is supposed to look like.

[Sadistic Savior]

IceSerpent, on 26 April 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

I think you are completely missing what people are so upset about. When you promise to make a game based on certain rules, you are not supposed to change those rules at a whim.

...in a finished product. This is a beta. Beta means the rules are still being decided.

Chess is a finished product, not a beta. When you play chess, it is understood that the rules are set in stone. This is not like chess.

IceSerpent, on 26 April 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

staying close to the original was one of the major selling points for Founders program.

"Staying close to the original' comes down to opinion. PGI's opinion is the one that matters most in this context. Anyone buying a Founders package should have been aware of that...it is common sense IMO.

[IceSerpent]

Sadistic Savior, on 26 April 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

...in a finished product. This is a beta. Beta means the rules are still being decided.

Chess is a finished product, not a beta. When you play chess, it is understood that the rules are set in stone. This is not like chess.

No, if I am making a PC chess game, it's not a finished product (I am still developing it) and it's possible that not all features have been implemented yet (i.e. it might not have timed moves due to being beta), but rules are indeed set in stone, otherwise it's not a chess game. Likewise, BT has rules cast in stone and if I am making a game "as close to BT as possible", I shouldn't change those rules unless I absolutely, positively have to.

Quote

"Staying close to the original' comes down to opinion. PGI's opinion is the one that matters most in this context. Anyone buying a Founders package should have been aware of that...it is common sense IMO.

Let's say I promise people to make a WWII air combat sim, raise some funds via kickstarter/founders program on the grounds of it being as historically accurate as possible, then decide to make P 51 Mustang go supersonic and pack heat-seeking missiles...according to you, everybody with an ounce of common sense should have expected me doing that because..."reasons and things" I guess?

[Sadistic Savior]

IceSerpent, on 26 April 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

if I am making a PC chess game, it's not a finished product

It's rules are. The rules of the game are not subject to change in Chess.

IceSerpent, on 26 April 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

Likewise, BT has rules cast in stone

Yes, it does. But this is not Battletech. This is Mechwarrior online...a video game BASED on Battletech. It is not a 100% analog to the TT game and was never presented as such.

IceSerpent, on 26 April 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

and if I am making a game "as close to BT as possible", I shouldn't change those rules unless I absolutely, positively have to.

They apparently believe they absolutely, positively have to.

You cannot use TT rules in a video game, because TT rules use random chance to determine hits, not twitch controls. There is no way to do that in this game unless you make it non-twitch like Eve or Everquest. It is reasonable, in a BETA, to expect that they will experiment a bit to find the right balance. There is no way they could replicate the TT experience in a twitch game. There are way way more variables to deal with.

IceSerpent, on 26 April 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

Let's say I promise people to make a WWII air combat sim, raise some funds via kickstarter/founders program on the grounds of it being as historically accurate as possible, then decide to make P 51 Mustang go supersonic and pack heat-seeking missiles...according to you, everybody with an ounce of common sense should have expected me doing that because..."reasons and things" I guess?

Historical accuracy would matter then, because that is not fiction. Battletech is 100% fiction. So the two cannot be compared IMO.

Founders chose to take a risk. They got rewards other people did not because of it. They were not cheated out of anything, and PGI owes them nothing. Because the risks were made clear up front.

[Carnivoris]

I'm not the MWO fanboy I used to be, but you're just being petty. How much money did you spend on a product that wasn't actually completed? Why would you do that if you knew you'd ***** about it later if the finished product wasn't exactly what you wanted? The legal stance here is pretty straightforward. You agreed to the ToS. You're bound by those regulations. No refund for you unless you want to start a possibly-fraudulent complaint with your bank.

[IceSerpent]

Sadistic Savior, on 26 April 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

They apparently believe they absolutely, positively have to.

And they are apparently wrong, because their changes mess up balance and don't provide any gameplay advantages whatsoever. Just for example, try to come up with a solid reason behind coupling heat dissipation and heat capacity into a single parameter.

Quote

You cannot use TT rules in a video game, because TT rules use random chance to determine hits, not twitch controls. There is no way to do that in this game unless you make it non-twitch like Eve or Everquest.

Wanna bet? When you switch from dice rolls to a sim you lose RNG, but you gain ability to make DoT weapons and, even more importantly, you can now play with RoF and projectile trajectories / spreads. I guarantee you that MWO can be balanced around TT values (or rather a variation of Solaris rules) very easily.

Quote

It is reasonable, in a BETA, to expect that they will experiment a bit to find the right balance. There is no way they could replicate the TT experience in a twitch game. There are way way more variables to deal with.

Sure, it's reasonable to experiment with max. speeds, RoF, convergence, missile spreads, etc. It's not reasonable to experiment with things that don't need to be changed to begin with.

Quote

Historical accuracy would matter then, because that is not fiction. Battletech is 100% fiction. So the two cannot be compared IMO.

It doesn't matter whether your "base material" is real or not, in some cases you can't even tell if some legend or epos is based on real events. The accuracy of the simulation is just a comparison to whatever you chose to be your source - LOTR elves have pointy ears simply because Tolkien said so, reality doesn't factor in at all.

Quote

Founders chose to take a risk. They got rewards other people did not because of it. They were not cheated out of anything, and PGI owes them nothing. Because the risks were made clear up front.

What useful (as in different shape of the Founders Catapult nose doesn't count as "useful") reward did Founders get that other players can't get right now? The risk along the lines of "PGI might go bankrupt and never get the game off the ground" was clear and accepted, but the risk along the lines of "PGI might do a complete U-turn on the stuff that they explicitly promised" was never on the table.

[Sadistic Savior]

IceSerpent, on 26 April 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

And they are apparently wrong, because their changes mess up balance and don't provide any gameplay advantages whatsoever. Just for example, try to come up with a solid reason behind coupling heat dissipation and heat capacity into a single parameter.

Maybe they had a reason you do not know about. maybe it is a limitation of the game engine, or to prevent some kind of cheating. Their opinion supersedes yours, and you were aware of this before you paid them any money.

IceSerpent, on 26 April 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Wanna bet?

TT is nothing like a Sim. It is turn based and abstract. A sim is real time and precise. There is no comparing the two. It is insane and ridiculous to expect them to replicate TT in a video game sim.

IceSerpent, on 26 April 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

It's not reasonable to experiment with things that don't need to be changed to begin with.

...according to who? Who decided they do not need to be changed?

Plenty of other Founders do not seem to have a problem with it. What makes you right and them wrong?

[Void Angel]

ForestGnome, on 24 April 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

If they were located in the U.S. they could have been sued for both bad faith (non-insurance) and possible false advertisement, as their devs, speaking on the clock on the forums, would justify product mis-representation when they said things like:

• We would never EVER think of bringing coolant in

• We would never bring in 3rd person, it would segment the players

• We would never let you give cash for damage

• There will be only 1 MC only mech type

• You won't be able to customize hero mechs

Oh, save us all from blanket-roll lawyers. Especially ones who are utterly dishone creative with their facts.

Lindonius, on 24 April 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Yeah against my better judgement I bought some more MC even though I had reservations about PGI's ability to solve all the problems that plague this game (not going into them here, you know what they are.)

And now we have this thinly veiled attempt to remove any kind of criticism of their product on their very own public forums it's the final nail in the coffin for me.

I know I don't have much case for a refund. I thought that seeing as I only just bought the MC there might be something like a 10 day cool-down period like they have in retail transactions where you can return your product after 10 days if your not happy with it.

I think I'll just damn their impudence and wipe my hands of the whole sorry affair.

By "thinly veiled attempt to remove any kind of criticism," I imagine that you mean the forum rework. Since the forum rules prohibit me from describing other players in pejorative terms, suffice it to say that:

• Reorganizing the forums without deleting anything, is an utterly ineffective way to "silence criticism." It is, on the other hand, an excellent means to ensure that posts are made in the proper topic. This allows anyone reading the forums a much easier time finding what they're looking for - including criticism. Thus, the idea that they're somehow trying to censor the brave souls who criticize them is imbecilic. This claim is the kind of narcissistic, ego-thumping nonsense that conspiracy theorists, political radicals (of any faction,) and other disordered personalities use to gain psychological gratification independent of reality. So I worry about your mental stability, and wish you well in your treatment - but I don't take your position seriously in the least.
  
• Second, there is often a buyer's remorse policy required by law for certain transactions; call around and see if you can in fact get a refund, if you're really that upset that games change during development.

Edited by Void Angel, 26 April 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[Void Angel]

Boarneges, on 26 April 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

Think of it this way: how'd you like it if your boss was constantly watching over your shoulder and going "This is bad", "That sucks", "You screwed that one up again", etcetera. Don't know about you, but I wouldn't like it very much. I'm not saying criticism is bad, but atleast make sure it's the supportive kind. People tend to get stuff done faster and better when you're being supportive rather than breaking their every move down constantly.

Not the boss; he at least knows what's required of your job and why you're doing what you're doing.

These goons are the customers.

[IceSerpent]

Sadistic Savior, on 26 April 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Maybe they had a reason you do not know about. maybe it is a limitation of the game engine, or to prevent some kind of cheating.

Now you are just white-knighting - we both know that game engine never has anything to do with weapon damages, ammo counts, armor values, heat capacity, etc. Any game engine ever created can handle a PPC doing 0.000001 dmg just like a PPC doing "over 9000" dmg.

Quote

Their opinion supersedes yours, and you were aware of this before you paid them any money.

Problem is that when I paid them their stated opinion was similar to mine. They started to pull the "it was our position at the time" stunts much later.

Quote

TT is nothing like a Sim. It is turn based and abstract. A sim is real time and precise. There is no comparing the two. It is insane and ridiculous to expect them to replicate TT in a video game sim.

TT is just a different kind of abstraction. Both table top game and a sim can be made real time / not real time or as precise / imprecise as you want. Nobody expects them to replicate TT verbatim, but making changes that obviously break the game (and one can see how they break the game after looking at the design for about 5 mins) is definitely "insane and ridiculous".

Oh, and you can easily compare TT game to a video game, a movie to a book, a book to a theater play, etc., etc. Any abstraction can be compared to any other abstraction of the same subject and people to this kind of comparison all the time.

Quote

...according to who? Who decided they do not need to be changed?

According to the reality - if you can't come up with a reason why something needs to be changed, then that something should remain untouched.

Quote

Plenty of other Founders do not seem to have a problem with it. What makes you right and them wrong?

Facts. Current game balance is just bad and it doesn't have to be this way. Do you really think that everybody is packing PPCs these days just because they like lightning animation?

[Felicitatem Parco]

The Support Staff at support@mwomercs.com are the people who you'd want to contact regarding your in-game MechWarrior Credits. They may be able to help Users acquire a refund under certain circumstances.

I'm going to lock this thread because the question of the OP has been answered, and the open discussion about what is/isn't worthy of a refund will not likely have any impact on the OP's interactions with Support.