597 replies to this topic

[Alaskan Nobody]

Heffay, on 07 November 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Have fun spending $10k in legal fees to try to get back $120.

Fixed that for ya.

[Chronojam]

Heffay, on 07 November 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Have fun spending $10k in legal fees to get back $120.

I can pretty much guarantee that nobody who talked to their credit card company about getting back the charges or making an argument about incomplete products were charged $10,000 for the process. The whole point of being able to charge-back and have excellent insurance/warranties on anything you purchase with your credit card is that credit card companies have huge legal departments standing by constantly; it is the merchant that does not want to spent the legal fees to argue with the credit company when the charge is reversed.

[Heffay]

Chronojam, on 08 November 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

I can pretty much guarantee that nobody who talked to their credit card company about getting back the charges or making an argument about incomplete products were charged $10,000 for the process. The whole point of being able to charge-back and have excellent insurance/warranties on anything you purchase with your credit card is that credit card companies have huge legal departments standing by constantly; it is the merchant that does not want to spent the legal fees to argue with the credit company when the charge is reversed.

Is that what you did? Charge-back to get your Founders money refunded?

[Tombstoner]

Chronojam, on 07 November 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

If it's a true licensing agreement between, say, Microsoft and your company, then you might have a reason to feel the terms will stand up. Your typical software EULA for whatever game you're into won't. License agreements included at install-time or patch-time are also in a dubious position as you, the consumer, would not have understood the terms prior to purchase. While some terms of use are established under pre-existing law or precedent, a EULA itself (and thus anything tossed into a EULA) is not automatically enforceable or even guaranteed to be legal, especially as jurisdictions vary in their treatment of such language.

For example, several digital-download EULAs have claimed you do not own the rights to re-sell your copy or the license, but this language was explicitly dismissed by EU courts in a recent high profile case. Some software might include a EULA that precludes you from bringing a lawsuit against the company, but in several circumstances and jurisdictions that language is unenforceable.

A EULA isn't magic to let anything go.

Agreed you do touch upon the quantum nature of law. what is written is not necessarily enforceable. but knowing that should not automatically invalidate the EULA. you can place unreasonable terms in the EULA but it still is legally binding. unless it violates preexisting precedence like the ability to transfer value you purchased. something that the EULA would forbid. but to over turn a EULA because the end user it too dumb to understand what they are doing is a bit far fetched. for the average person. yes it can be overturned for children and menatly disabled and elderly.

[Chronojam]

Tombstoner, on 08 November 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

Agreed you do touch upon the quantum nature of law. what is written is not necessarily enforceable. but knowing that should not automatically invalidate the EULA. you can place unreasonable terms in the EULA but it still is legally binding. unless it violates preexisting precedence like the ability to transfer value you purchased. something that the EULA would forbid. but to over turn a EULA because the end user it too dumb to understand what they are doing is a bit far fetched. for the average person. yes it can be overturned for children and menatly disabled and elderly.

They already have been criticized and overturned due to unnecessary complexity, self-contradiction, changes between what is known as purchase time versus future updates or "behind the shrinkwrap" terms, etc. They have also been overturned if there is no clear and explicit acceptance or rejection of the terms, and "well don't use it" buried in a 27,000 word text file has not been proven to be one of those clear indicators, either.

[Tombstoner]

Chronojam, on 08 November 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

They already have been criticized and overturned due to unnecessary complexity, self-contradiction, changes between what is known as purchase time versus future updates or "behind the shrinkwrap" terms, etc. They have also been overturned if there is no clear and explicit acceptance or rejection of the terms, and "well don't use it" buried in a 27,000 word text file has not been proven to be one of those clear indicators, either.

one of the supreme court justices of the US was quoted as saying he doesn't read those agreements. So if people know that most people never read them and just hit ok. how then can you enforce such agreements. but people are agreeing to terms when the agreement is not read.

south part did an awesome parity of this with the centi pad.
you either read and accept the Eula as legally binding or you dont use the product. that how it should work. and if people stopped just clicking ok the size of the EULA would have to go down in response to falling sales or use.

[MustrumRidcully]

Heffay, on 08 November 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

Is that what you did? Charge-back to get your Founders money refunded?

He still has an Elite Founder tag, so no, he did not. If you charge back, your founder privileges are taken away, in fact, I believe you'Re also banned.

That is what I believe is basically the extent to what an EULA can "enforce" - you can effectively not be forced to obey the rules in the EULA, but if you don't, they can try to restrict your access (because you have no contractual basis of using their products and services). This at least works for online games.

[Oppresor]

At the end of the day it's a case of loyalty; not to PGI (although having said that, many of us joined during the early Beta test phase), but loyalty to the genre. Going by the Poll almost a year ago, I joined the MechWarrior universe late at MW3; the Poll clearly indicated that the vast majority joined at MW2 in 1995. This means that we have been dedicated followers of the genre for almost 20 years, a quarter of the average lifespan of a human these days and a big investment in time.

Speaking for myself, I had grabbed at the straw that was MechAssault 1 & 2 during the dark years between MW Mercenaries and MWO, yes this meant spending out on the P3 powered Xbox, but it was worth it to get my MechWarrior fix. Now we have MWO, perfect? not exactly, but improving all the time through the hard work of the developers and key intermediaries like Garth Eriam who listen to our feedback.

Am I happy? Yes, I have MechWarrior again

What would make me happier? Set mission objectives & sub objectives and of course an Omega

[Darth Futuza]

Silent, on 07 November 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

If you love the game so much why don't you just shut up about it and play instead of coming on the forums trying to defend it.

It just seems to me that PGI cares more about statistical numbers then what people actually say. Which sort of makes sense from a business standpoint I suppose. My point being, if this is the case (they care more about statistics then comments/forum posts), then it seems like they'd pay more attention to massive amounts of people just going inactive and never playing/never using the forums. That's all I was trying to suggest, seems to make more sense to me as far as making a difference goes, then ranting on the forums about it. Maybe you still care about the game though, maybe that's why you stick around.

[Silent]

I care enough about it to still read updates and find out what they are working on in those rare instances when they communicate with the community beyond telling everyone what new overpriced doodad was just implemented. At this point I would say I care more about the IP than the actual game. It's up to PGI to make me regain that interest in their game.

We'll see.

[Sandpit]

Holy legal debate batman!

When did this become a quorum for jailhouse lawyers as opposed to a review about a video game?

[Alaskan Nobody]

Sandpit, on 20 November 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

Holy legal debate batman!

When did this become a quorum for jailhouse lawyers as opposed to a review about a video game?

About the same time it got opened to the public?

[Sandpit]

Shar Wolf, on 20 November 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

About the same time it got opened to the public?

touche sir, touche

[ownka]

I warned you, PGI!
That is all.

[Victor Morson]

Oppresor, on 08 November 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Am I happy? Yes, I have MechWarrior again

That is why 99% of us that are still here, are still here.

[Corvus Antaka]

Sandpit, on 20 November 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

Holy legal debate batman!

When did this become a quorum for jailhouse lawyers as opposed to a review about a video game?

Whats funnier is that the legal debate is taking place here. If, indeed, it was so easy to get their money back, they'd probably be doing that instead of posting here about it.

Can't believe this thread is still going...

[Heffay]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 23 November 2013 - 02:06 AM, said:

Whats funnier is that the legal debate is taking place here. If, indeed, it was so easy to get their money back, they'd probably be doing that instead of posting here about it.

My favorite is the trolls telling people to do chargebacks on their credit cards, when they clearly haven't do so themselves.

[Rhys Erlykov]

While I won't begrudge another player's discontented opinion, I remember reading the article, gaining a bad impression about the game, but eventually (months later) downloading this product.

I'm quite pleased I did. Even with the supposed miscommunication and terrible PR that PGI has partaken in, I still HIGHLY enjoy the game.

Forums are typically bastions of discontent and rage. Most of the playerbase simply don't give a ****.

It almost leads me to take an apathetic view of these complaints. A significant portion of the article detailed the absolute apoplectic fist-shaking fury over the implementation of the third-person view.

I can count the number of times that I've seen players in-game ACTUALLY fighting in 3rd person on one hand. LITERALLY.

I just use it at the beginning to enjoy the animation of my mech stomping into battle, and to check out my custom paintjob.

So... that's my two cents.

Edited by Rhys Erlykov, 23 November 2013 - 02:34 PM.

[Aeolus Drift]

Rhys Erlykov, on 23 November 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

While I won't begrudge another player's discontented opinion, I remember reading the article, gaining a bad impression about the game, but eventually (months later) downloading this product.

I'm quite pleased I did. Even with the supposed miscommunication and terrible PR that PGI has partaken in, I still HIGHLY enjoy the game.

Forums are typically bastions of discontent and rage. Most of the playerbase simply don't give a ****.

It almost leads me to take an apathetic view of these complaints. A significant portion of the article detailed the absolute apoplectic fist-shaking fury over the implementation of the third-person view.

I can count the number of times that I've seen players in-game ACTUALLY fighting in 3rd person on one hand. LITERALLY.

I just use it at the beginning to enjoy the animation of my mech stomping into battle, and to check out my custom paintjob.

So... that's my two cents.

Glad to hear your enjoying the game thus far, You must be new here.

Since I appear to be a bit late, Allow me to welcome you to MWO, where the factions are made up, and the battles don't matter. this line of logic also applies to the economy, ghost heat, ELO rankings, customization, XP, ingame sales, the usefulness of stock mechs, the developers' integrity or honesty, and in some cases your level of enjoyment.

Hope you continue to enjoy our game!

[Rhys Erlykov]

Thanks. I did participate in... I think it was open beta (I don't recall receiving a closed beta invitation). The game didn't click for me then. It does now. Should it ever stop being satisfying... well, I'll move on.

The level of discontent detailed in the Gamefront article led me to believe that this game would be complete trash; I was surprised to find myself quite enamored with the gameplay and immersed in the Battletech universe once again.

That's all.

Edited by Rhys Erlykov, 24 November 2013 - 12:39 PM.