Jump to content


Answer Me This Question About Premium Tanks Legal Protection


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

Element6 #101 Posted 16 February 2020 - 01:28 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33475 battles
  • 12,035
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 16 February 2020 - 11:56 AM, said:

Most Premium tanks will come out of this neutral, a few will get a buff and a few will suffer from the changes to HE.  No one is saying they can't change the tanks, it's about appropriate compensation for the ones that are nerfed.  At the moment WG haven't addressed the issue - they might just be testing the water using the Sandbox to see it they'll have an issue.

Yeah, that's probably quite close to the truth. Another issue might be choice of ammunition in relation to expectations, I.E you could for example argue that you shouldn't base it all on one type if the tank in question has access to 3 different ones. With a tank like the KV-2/KV-2R people seem to often run with pure HE. Other times people load no HE whatsoever and whine because they couldn't damage the enemy capping their base with 10 HP left, and thus lost.

 

Are we eligible for a refund if we base our expectations are based on only portions of the product we bought?

 

Another thing I wonder; have no premium tank ever been changed/tweaked after release, in the entire WoT history?



Gremlin182 #102 Posted 16 February 2020 - 01:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 63492 battles
  • 10,422
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

I have no problem with them buffing or nerfing premium tanks or with removing PMM and making all tanks have normal MM.

Tanks OP tanks become balanced with time and balanced tanks become uncompetitive, when new tanks come into the game there seems to be a rule that they must be better than whats gone before.

Premium or standard doesn't matter they need to be better or players will ignore them, the Defender is not as OP now as it was.

 

If someone buys a premium tank and it is nerfed in the first year then maybe they have a reasonable claim for either a replacement or money back.

After that sorry forget it.

 

The other way to balance such tanks it the way I suggested they handle rebalancing PMM tanks.

Do you remember when they sold the rare V/IV tank and the only difference was the original has an Alpha logo.

Ok well do the same with premiums bring out a rebalanced version of the tank be it nerfed buffed or whatever lets assume its the Defender.

You do not nerf or buff those already in play you just change those you sell from now on.

Defender 2.0 is sold players with defenders can change to the new tank for free old defender never sold again and time will gradually reduce their numbers.

No change to the tank sold so no claims for compensation.

The idea works better with PMM tanks but still a valid way to make changes to premium tanks.



ThorgrimBrenadim #103 Posted 16 February 2020 - 01:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37398 battles
  • 845
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View PostElement6, on 16 February 2020 - 11:26 AM, said:

There is an interesting entry in the ToS;

 

 

 


All ToS have to be fair and observe local laws if they do not they could right anything they want and it means absolutely nothing and would probably not even make it through the court doors before the company conceded defeat.

 

  • d) Virtual Goods cannot be exchanged for cash or any goods or services (except other Virtual Goods as permitted in the Services);
  • e) we do not make any promises about how or when Virtual Goods may be available for purchase and can update or change Virtual Goods available for purchase at any time;

These two points first is unless for legal reasons they are not obliged to give cash refunds and is acceptable and why we can exchange premium tanks at a loss for other premium tanks. The second point means they can update or change virtual goods this means remove from sale alter the price so buy it cheap as it may well only get more expensive. Yes they do have a right to change the premium tank specs, no we can not stop them doing that but law trumps policy EULA and ToS every single time no matter what any of those three say  and so a company would have to offer compensation now a sensible company in this sort of industry would first try and offer virtual goods as in reality that costs them nothing, and they are perfectly within their rights to try this first and if the offer is good customers would be idiots not to accept so a win win for both. But ultimately in the end if customers wanted a cash refund be it partial or in full then that is what would have to happen. Companies try and mitigate though and making a good, a fair offer would strengthen their legal case etc etc.



Element6 #104 Posted 16 February 2020 - 01:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33475 battles
  • 12,035
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostThorgrimBrenadim, on 16 February 2020 - 01:38 PM, said:


All ToS have to be fair and observe local laws if they do not they could right anything they want and it means absolutely nothing and would probably not even make it through the court doors before the company conceded defeat.

 

  • d) Virtual Goods cannot be exchanged for cash or any goods or services (except other Virtual Goods as permitted in the Services);
  • e) we do not make any promises about how or when Virtual Goods may be available for purchase and can update or change Virtual Goods available for purchase at any time;

These two points first is unless for legal reasons they are not obliged to give cash refunds and is acceptable and why we can exchange premium tanks at a loss for other premium tanks. The second point means they can update or change virtual goods this means remove from sale alter the price so buy it cheap as it may well only get more expensive. Yes they do have a right to change the premium tank specs, no we can not stop them doing that but law trumps policy EULA and ToS every single time no matter what any of those three say  and so a company would have to offer compensation now a sensible company in this sort of industry would first try and offer virtual goods as in reality that costs them nothing, and they are perfectly within their rights to try this first and if the offer is good customers would be idiots not to accept so a win win for both. But ultimately in the end if customers wanted a cash refund be it partial or in full then that is what would have to happen. Companies try and mitigate though and making a good, a fair offer would strengthen their legal case etc etc.

If law always trump ToS an EULAs then I'm scratchimg my head as to why a company would bother paying someone a salary typing them out to the extent that they do, and to such detail, in the first place.



RaxipIx #105 Posted 16 February 2020 - 02:05 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36319 battles
  • 1,688
  • [TFUK] TFUK
  • Member since:
    02-22-2016

b) once you have purchased Virtual Goods, those Virtual Goods are non-refundable and non-exchangeable (whether or not you use them), except as set forth in these Terms of Service, or as it is required under the applicable law;

 

 

 

Here, seems people are obsess about the TOS, that paragraph is from Wot TOS, making it perfectly clear to me, they know in some cases the law requires  them to do so.



ThorgrimBrenadim #106 Posted 16 February 2020 - 02:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37398 battles
  • 845
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View PostElement6, on 16 February 2020 - 01:47 PM, said:

If law always trump ToS an EULAs then I'm scratchimg my head as to why a company would bother paying someone a salary typing them out to the extent that they do, and to such detail, in the first place.


So do you think that Policy ( that is only applicable to employees not customers ) that ToS and EULA's trump law??

 

I am not having a go at wargaming here it is systemic within corporations to the point it is normal std practice and one people who know their rights are slowly trying to change. They have got away with enforcing unfair conditions for many many years and if you look closely at most EULA and ToS they will breach law at some point. Now fair dues sometimes it is because these are written by a company in country X but then copy pasted to country Y but country Y has laws that repute parts of these. Sometimes it is done underhanded to say to the customer look at our ToS or EULA etc etc and that is the law because people unfortunately do think well why would it differ from law after all why would they spend money employing people to write all this if it did not follow law.

Simple answer to point it out to a customer who is not keyed up on their consumer rights and that customer then folds so a win for the company. This is slowly changing as I said but till we all start standing up for our rights it is a slow process. But ! we have to be fair to company's as well it is not a one way street in our favour just as it is not a one way street in their favour.

Again I had this with a company last year bought a racing wheel for the PC as a backup/spare for friends coming round their was a picture and the wording just said a logitec wheel for the PC when it came it looked nothing like the picture and the company said that the picture was just their for ***** and ****** and did not form part of the agreement/description. Now I had a look on their site and other items showed the items for sale and others a more generic and that latter group did say something like for illustration etc etc which covered them legally. The one I bought did not. After a few useless exchanges via email I rejected the goods they would not arrange collection at first till I pointed out they either arrange collection at their expense or I fail a claim, if they do not collect they still then have to refund. I copy pasted the relevant laws and low and behold they arranged collection and refunded. ( I had threatened to make them supply the actual goods as well which was my right and would have cost them a lot more ).

 

So no I am not a lawyer but yes I have been down this road quite a few times mostly with very quick and often quite pleasant interaction with a company even though their ToS says different. yes sometimes it is a few weeks of emails every 3-4 days back and forward before they either finally get it through to someone who understands the law and consumer rights or they just realise on this occasion we have someone who knows their rights and will not bend to the big bad company EA as prime example for that type of attitude.



Element6 #107 Posted 16 February 2020 - 02:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33475 battles
  • 12,035
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
If it seems that people obsess over ToS and/or EULA in this thread...it might be worthwhile to recheck the definition of obsess.

CmdRatScabies #108 Posted 16 February 2020 - 02:19 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 39078 battles
  • 6,307
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostElement6, on 16 February 2020 - 01:28 PM, said:

Another thing I wonder; have no premium tank ever been changed/tweaked after release, in the entire WoT history?

It was before I started but I think the Type 59 was the one that they changed without compensation and learnt a critical lesson in doing so.   After that the Super Pershing was nerfed but with a full refund and opportunity to rebuy at half price.  Since then only the abandoned plan to change PMM tanks and straight up buffs.

 

I think if you bought a Premium tank then the precedent and expectation is that it won't be nerfed without compensation.

13:20 Added after 1 minute

View PostElement6, on 16 February 2020 - 01:47 PM, said:

If law always trump ToS an EULAs then I'm scratchimg my head as to why a company would bother paying someone a salary typing them out to the extent that they do, and to such detail, in the first place.

Most will read the ToS, assume it's "just the way it is" and move on.  Mission accomplished.



amashi #109 Posted 16 February 2020 - 02:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20796 battles
  • 608
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

It's a "live service", subject to termination without notice.

 

 



Slyspy #110 Posted 16 February 2020 - 02:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 15327 battles
  • 17,980
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostElement6, on 16 February 2020 - 01:47 PM, said:

If law always trump ToS an EULAs then I'm scratchimg my head as to why a company would bother paying someone a salary typing them out to the extent that they do, and to such detail, in the first place.

 

Of course the law trumps EULA and ToS. Why on earth would you think they wouldn't? They are essentially a form of contract.

 

However, they also lay out the basis of the relationship between the customer and the supplier unless any particular clause is trumped by local laws. Otherwise they would have to have a EULA/ToS customised for every locale in which they wished to operate.

 

Also note that the highlighted clause merely means that WG claim a right to be able to alter their own IP as they see fit, which is reasonable. It does not, however, protect them from any consequences of doing so. Interestingly that clause only apples to goods available for purchase and does not refer to goods already purchased. 



Jumping_Turtle #111 Posted 16 February 2020 - 02:44 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 74561 battles
  • 8,805
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostElement6, on 16 February 2020 - 01:47 PM, said:

If law always trump ToS an EULAs then I'm scratchimg my head as to why a company would bother paying someone a salary typing them out to the extent that they do, and to such detail, in the first place.

 

I think they can solve 99% of the complaints with pointing the complainer to the ToS and EULA's. and those complainers leaves it at that.



jabster #112 Posted 16 February 2020 - 02:49 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12845 battles
  • 27,689
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSlyspy, on 16 February 2020 - 01:38 PM, said:

 

Of course the law trumps EULA and ToS. Why on earth would you think they wouldn't? They are essentially a form of contract.

 

However, they also lay out the basis of the relationship between the customer and the supplier unless any particular clause is trumped by local laws. Otherwise they would have to have a EULA/ToS customised for every locale in which they wished to operate.

 

Also note that the highlighted clause merely means that WG claim a right to be able to alter their own IP as they see fit, which is reasonable. It does not, however, protect them from any consequences of doing so. Interestingly that clause only apples to goods available for purchase and does not refer to goods already purchased. 


I’m not even sure what you ‘bought’ when you buy a premium tank - the right to unlock some stats maybe?



snowlywhite #113 Posted 16 February 2020 - 03:00 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30926 battles
  • 818
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

View PostRaxipIx, on 16 February 2020 - 09:13 AM, said:

I really don't get it why people call the consumer rights stupid.

Let me give an example why it's there.

 

I download a GPS program to my phone, worth 99 Euros, that shows the roads for the whole EU. 1 month after i installed the program, the company selling it decides, scratch that, costs  us too much money to have whole EU, we will make it only half  EU after money has exchanged hands, unilaterally.

 

Do you think i am entitled  to a  refund or not?

 

 

And i keep seeing that WG can't change premium tanks. What are you guys on about, ofc they can change them. BUT if they do they need to offer a choice to the people who bought the tank with money, you want to keep it in it's new form, or you want money back.

 

I will give another example, let's pretend WG tomorrow sells a premium tier 8 tank with 1000 Alpha. Game breaking OP. People buy that tank.

1 month after it hits the live servers, WG realize they made a mistake and decide to nerf the alpha do 500 dmg for the sake of game balance,unilaterally again.

 

Do you think i am entitled  to a  refund or,partial refund at least ?

 

 

That's why the consumer law is there, so companies can't do the above without consequences. I hope people get it now and stop calling the law stupid.

 

because they sold premiums worth billions. Like in more than one. Obviously they can't refund said billions.

 

so, if ppl. would persist in demanding a refund(which, ok, I don't believe to be the case), the game will go down the drain as no rebalance can ever be done. And having the game go down the drain after you invested in it by buying some premiums... is the ultimate stupidity.

 

It's the definition of stupidity - be against something that would help you.



ThorgrimBrenadim #114 Posted 16 February 2020 - 03:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37398 battles
  • 845
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View Postsnowlywhite, on 16 February 2020 - 03:00 PM, said:

 

because they sold premiums worth billions. Like in more than one. Obviously they can't refund said billions.

 

so, if ppl. would persist in demanding a refund(which, ok, I don't believe to be the case), the game will go down the drain as no rebalance can ever be done. And having the game go down the drain after you invested in it by buying some premiums... is the ultimate stupidity.

 

It's the definition of stupidity - be against something that would help you.


Nope def of stupidity is thinking we the consumer do not have rights. Yes we can demand a refund be it in full or part but most times a company will in this type of case be able to offer an ingame compensation which in reality costs them next to nothing.

 

The reason they do this is because court cases are not just about the item price/cost they also include court costs and most importantly legal costs. Now it is those legal costs that are the real cost it can run into tens if not hundreds of thousands and sometimes even millions ( not in this case ) So a company make offers if a court deems them offers fair then guess what the court is very unlikely to award costs against the company both parties will pay their own legal costs. In some cases these offers are deemed acceptable and the company could win and be awarded costs.

 

If you drive and have a car accident and get some injury's the other party normally make an offer of compensation. lets say they offer 5000 if you say no and go to court and get awarded 5001 they pay your costs or most of them, if though you get awarded 4999 they will not have to pay your costs and I have seen a few cases where costs have been awarded to the other side.

It is all about mitigating costs that is the aim of any company and why I have said numerous times it is about us as customers being fair as well. So if we think this would cost wargaming millions and cause serious financial issues ( which it probably would not ) then we be fair and accept ingame compensation.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #115 Posted 16 February 2020 - 03:20 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 36971 battles
  • 6,117
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostGremlin182, on 16 February 2020 - 01:38 PM, said:

I have no problem with them buffing or nerfing premium tanks or with removing PMM and making all tanks have normal MM.

Tanks OP tanks become balanced with time and balanced tanks become uncompetitive, when new tanks come into the game there seems to be a rule that they must be better than whats gone before.

Premium or standard doesn't matter they need to be better or players will ignore them, the Defender is not as OP now as it was.

 

This is the players fault. When WG release something balanced, with weak spots, like the Mauerbrecher for instance the players whine that it's worthless. The CC's don't help the situation any when they repeat the same and tell everyone not to buy it. When WG release something OP like the Defender the players whine that it's OP, but they buy it in droves. The CC's don't help there either with the the fuss they make about it, but hey, it's good for those clicks right?

 

It's a simple case of supply and demand. WG are just giving the players what they ask for.



snowlywhite #116 Posted 16 February 2020 - 03:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30926 battles
  • 818
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

Fine. You're WG CEO; why would you then take the risk and all the assorted headaches? Instead of keep milking the players while it lasts?

 

so far, apparently they seem to be thinking exactly how I am. Hence they'll implement some totally crap changes instead of doing an actual rebalance. But no worries, our rights will be respected. And if we won't find enough players to generate a game - that's too bad I guess. Premiums were not changed, our rights were totally respected, there's no reason for a refund...

 

dictionary definition of stupidity. Nothing less.


Edited by snowlywhite, 16 February 2020 - 03:26 PM.


Bulldog_Drummond #117 Posted 16 February 2020 - 03:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35815 battles
  • 11,944
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014
At the mention of the name and offence of this degraded being a great sound went up from the entire multitude – a universal cry of execration, not greatly dissimilar from that which may be frequently heard in the crowded Temple of Impartiality when the one whose duty it is to take up, at a venture, the folded papers, announces that the sublime Emperor, or some mandarin of exalted rank, has been so fortunate as to hold the winning number in the Annual State Lottery.

ThorgrimBrenadim #118 Posted 16 February 2020 - 04:09 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37398 battles
  • 845
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View Postsnowlywhite, on 16 February 2020 - 03:26 PM, said:

Fine. You're WG CEO; why would you then take the risk and all the assorted headaches? Instead of keep milking the players while it lasts?

 

so far, apparently they seem to be thinking exactly how I am. Hence they'll implement some totally crap changes instead of doing an actual rebalance. But no worries, our rights will be respected. And if we won't find enough players to generate a game - that's too bad I guess. Premiums were not changed, our rights were totally respected, there's no reason for a refund...

 

dictionary definition of stupidity. Nothing less.


The only person who keeps going on about stupidity or the def of stupidity is you and to be honest it is getting beyond tiresome listening to the illogical ramblings coming from you.

If you want to give up your rights fine that is your choice but you do not speak for anyone else ie you do not try and say others do not have rights or that they are stupid for upholding those rights.

Stupid is people who have rights and do not defend them they are often called sheeple.

 

If the worst happened and they had to refund every premium tank purchase and the game collapsed ( which it would not ) the fault would lie 100% with the company for not allowing for such an outcome and being prepared. For not talking to the customers and negotiating a fair offer that mitigates cost to said company. The scaremongering comments by you are offensive both to the customers ( players of this game ) and also to wargaming.

 

You are trying to guilt trip the players when there is no guilt and you are by your comment insinuating wargaming are that incompetent that utterly useless at even basic company management and planning that this would cause them to collapse. Now wargaming have a lot of faults and a lot of issues need to be addressed and fixed but this goes quite a few steps too far.



Element6 #119 Posted 16 February 2020 - 04:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33475 battles
  • 12,035
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 16 February 2020 - 02:19 PM, said:

It was before I started but I think the Type 59 was the one that they changed without compensation and learnt a critical lesson in doing so.   After that the Super Pershing was nerfed but with a full refund and opportunity to rebuy at half price.  Since then only the abandoned plan to change PMM tanks and straight up buffs.

 

I think if you bought a Premium tank then the precedent and expectation is that it won't be nerfed without compensation.

13:20 Added after 1 minute

Most will read the ToS, assume it's "just the way it is" and move on.  Mission accomplished.

So the change of the Type 59, without compensation, actually went through without any legal issues, or at least any court rulings? Maybe the part of this that is a bit interesting is that they did a change withouth a refund, then a change with a refund and still had more plans to change premiums. Now, whether the PMM change was binned due to technical/balance issues or legal issues is probably hard to tell, but the mere fact that they actually considered it in the first place sort of tells me that the legal issue might not have been the most pressing one.

 

I bet a fair few people re-read the ToS and EULA after the Type 59, and before/after the Super Pershing, and probably again before the proposed PMM changes. 

 

View PostSlyspy, on 16 February 2020 - 02:38 PM, said:

Of course the law trumps EULA and ToS. Why on earth would you think they wouldn't? They are essentially a form of contract.

 

However, they also lay out the basis of the relationship between the customer and the supplier unless any particular clause is trumped by local laws. Otherwise they would have to have a EULA/ToS customised for every locale in which they wished to operate.

 

Also note that the highlighted clause merely means that WG claim a right to be able to alter their own IP as they see fit, which is reasonable. It does not, however, protect them from any consequences of doing so. Interestingly that clause only apples to goods available for purchase and does not refer to goods already purchased. 

I didn't say I thought the law didn't trup the ToS/EULA, I said I was scratching my head as to why they were so deliberate and detailed if law trump them anyway. 

 

 

View PostJumping_Turtle, on 16 February 2020 - 02:44 PM, said:

I think they can solve 99% of the complaints with pointing the complainer to the ToS and EULA's. and those complainers leaves it at that.

So even if law trump the ToS/EULA, in practice the ToS trump the law, so to speak.

 



CmdRatScabies #120 Posted 16 February 2020 - 04:26 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 39078 battles
  • 6,307
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostElement6, on 16 February 2020 - 04:10 PM, said:

So the change of the Type 59, without compensation, actually went through without any legal issues, or at least any court rulings? Maybe the part of this that is a bit interesting is that they did a change withouth a refund, then a change with a refund and still had more plans to change premiums. Now, whether the PMM change was binned due to technical/balance issues or legal issues is probably hard to tell, but the mere fact that they actually considered it in the first place sort of tells me that the legal issue might not have been the most pressing one.

I'd imagine the impact on future sales might be the biggest factor.  If they refund premium tanks on an adhoc basis then I don't suppose we hear about it, but they're left with a customer base that isn't going to trust them and may spend less.  What we have with the HE rework & the sandbox might be them trying to calculate the reputational damage they'll pick up if they push ahead without openly offering compensation.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users