Jump to content


Answer Me This Question About Premium Tanks Legal Protection


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

snowlywhite #121 Posted 16 February 2020 - 04:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30604 battles
  • 802
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

View PostThorgrimBrenadim, on 16 February 2020 - 04:09 PM, said:


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.

 

I could say the same about your rambling, you know?

 

You talk a nice book. Me, I'm just looking at what WG does. And it's not "negotiating". Nor implement anything remotely useful. It's simply more of the same. Milking the goat machine. And some proposed changes that skirt around the issues.

 

Btw., suggesting they should negotiate with some thousands of people and take all the assorted headaches instead of doing nothing is beyond idiotic.

 

But hey... you can keep living in your dream world as far as I'm concerned. Worse case, there's still the .ru servers. Hopefully over there there wasn't an idiot saying that if you bought a pixel tank 5 years ago it should be kept like that till the end of time. I'll be fine; always was.



ThorgrimBrenadim #122 Posted 16 February 2020 - 04:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

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

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 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. 

 

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. 

 

 

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

 

 First point maybe not few will read it and not sure how long ago this was but if quite a long time ago then less fought for their rights and also consumer rights where not as strong as they are now.

 

That is the point of why some companies have unfair ToS etc because they know many will just believe that must be correct and the company wins by default ( pretty cheapo way to win most cases ). As I said before re policy how often do you hear company's say "well our policy is this or that's our policy to us the customers/public. yet we are not bound by any company policy unless we work/are paid by them as an employee or contractor.

Many companies are as they identify conflicts between ToS and law changing the ToS to fall in line with law. ToS and EULA can be soo long winded that it takes issues raised to identify a problem.

Have you ever read through pages and pages of legal documents it is mind numbing to say the least. As a lay person it is even worse half the time you see they say one condition in about ten different ways. It is like they are trying to find every single last loop hole and plug it but without the real knowledge to know what all the loopholes can be and instead of doing what you and me would do and coming up with a catch all ( an example I use is corporate tax ie Starbucks and Amazon avoiding it, my attitude rather than trying to find every loophole and block it to which you know others will look for any loophole not blocked and there are always many, just say "every company pay the due level of tax in the spirt of fair taxation, no exceptions unless granted by the state ) This would mean these company's pay the full tax and must petition the gov for any discount and it is at the sole discretion of said gov if they grant any tax relief.



ThorgrimBrenadim #123 Posted 16 February 2020 - 04:42 PM

    Warrant Officer

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

View Postsnowlywhite, on 16 February 2020 - 04:27 PM, said:

 

I could say the same about your rambling, you know?

 

You talk a nice book. Me, I'm just looking at what WG does. And it's not "negotiating". Nor implement anything remotely useful. It's simply more of the same. Milking the goat machine. And some proposed changes that skirt around the issues.

 

Btw., suggesting they should negotiate with some thousands of people and take all the assorted headaches instead of doing nothing is beyond idiotic.

 

But hey... you can keep living in your dream world as far as I'm concerned. Worse case, there's still the .ru servers. Hopefully over there there wasn't an idiot saying that if you bought a pixel tank 5 years ago it should be kept like that till the end of time. I'll be fine; always was.


They do not negotiate with thousands they offer a solution and if fair the thousands just accept it quite simple really. How they implement RNG, MM maps etc etc has nothing to do with what is being discussed here we do not buy maps we do not buy better RNG or MM. Yes wargaming are milking us at times I have no issue with that they need to make money. At other times I have serious issues with the level of milking the customers and there is nothing wrong with doing that if we do not try and stop them taking too big an advantage then guess what players would just start to leave anyway.

Sandbox is a type of negotiation they put changes on their and see what the reaction is. if pos then they may well go ahead with those changes if bad they are more likely to either not go ahead or look at other changes.

 

LAW ! and consumer rights is NOT ! a dream world.

 

If you want to call me an idiot then maybe you need to look closer to home first, it is idiots like you that have zero knowledge and zero clue the sheeple who are the issue. As I said if you want to give up your rights that's fine that is your choice I am not telling you that you have to stand up for your rights but I will call you out every single time you try and say we do not have rights or that exercising those rights is wrong or could cause problems for a company and that would be our fault.

 

I would suggest before you reply go and find your own country's consumer laws here in the UK it is " The Consumer Rights Act Oct 2015". These are also all backed by EU directives that every member nation must mirror which as I explained previously to someone else means every EU members laws/acts  must be equal to or better than the EU directives.



m1x_angelico #124 Posted 16 February 2020 - 05:48 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28457 battles
  • 1,561
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

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.

 

However, what if the company (let's call it WG1) that sold digital assets (premium tanks) to buyers (players) sold it's IP (right to use WoT name and other related IP) to another company (let's call it WG2). And let's say that WG1 "went" bankrupt. As WG2 bought just the IP, without any liabilities that are WG1's, WG2 could in theory change everything after the purchase, while consumers would have a case only against company WG1, which would be pointless, as even if they were successful, there would be nothing to get, as WG1's owners are separate from the corporate entity that went bankrupt.

 

The only way WG2, its owners or WG1's owners could be held responsible if someone was to prove there was a conspiracy to commit fraud or such, which would pierce the corporate veil. That is very rare in practice.

 

With little corporate restructuring, almost everything is possible, even changing a game, with minimal or no repercussions.

 

 



RaxipIx #125 Posted 16 February 2020 - 06:03 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36307 battles
  • 1,680
  • [TFUK] TFUK
  • Member since:
    02-22-2016

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 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. 

 

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. 

 

 

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

 

When was that nerf? In terms of years? I hope you understand that a lot can happen in i don't know 7years? Might be even more since i didn't find and exact date of the change, but then year 2013  i started finding topics about it.

 

I assume that since that time  up until this time a lot has changed in consumer rights, especially in the area of digital goods. The  EU directive on consumer law has been amended several times over the years to fix problems.  

 



Bulldog_Drummond #126 Posted 16 February 2020 - 06:16 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35735 battles
  • 11,875
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View Postm1x_angelico, on 16 February 2020 - 04:48 PM, said:

 

However, what if the company (let's call it WG1) that sold digital assets (premium tanks) to buyers (players) sold it's IP (right to use WoT name and other related IP) to another company (let's call it WG2). And let's say that WG1 "went" bankrupt. As WG2 bought just the IP, without any liabilities that are WG1's, WG2 could in theory change everything after the purchase, while consumers would have a case only against company WG1, which would be pointless, as even if they were successful, there would be nothing to get, as WG1's owners are separate from the corporate entity that went bankrupt.

 

The only way WG2, its owners or WG1's owners could be held responsible if someone was to prove there was a conspiracy to commit fraud or such, which would pierce the corporate veil. That is very rare in practice.

 

With little corporate restructuring, almost everything is possible, even changing a game, with minimal or no repercussions.

 

 

 

Welcome to my life.

There's a nice moment in the film "Laundromat" when the girl who thinks she has $20 million in her wholly-owned, offshore, bearer share company learns that her assets there have just gone from $20 million to $1 as the trustees have shifted all the assets out of it.



snowlywhite #127 Posted 16 February 2020 - 06:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30604 battles
  • 802
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

View Postm1x_angelico, on 16 February 2020 - 05:48 PM, said:

 

However, what if the company (let's call it WG1) that sold digital assets (premium tanks) to buyers (players) sold it's IP (right to use WoT name and other related IP) to another company (let's call it WG2). And let's say that WG1 "went" bankrupt. As WG2 bought just the IP, without any liabilities that are WG1's, WG2 could in theory change everything after the purchase, while consumers would have a case only against company WG1, which would be pointless, as even if they were successful, there would be nothing to get, as WG1's owners are separate from the corporate entity that went bankrupt.

 

The only way WG2, its owners or WG1's owners could be held responsible if someone was to prove there was a conspiracy to commit fraud or such, which would pierce the corporate veil. That is very rare in practice.

 

With little corporate restructuring, almost everything is possible, even changing a game, with minimal or no repercussions.

 

 

 

what I suggested was simply a change in MM. Premiums can only fight premiums. You bought a tank, not a MM. If you want to get the normal MM, you agree to a swap of your premium tank with an identical one. The identical one(with a different name) you didn't bought and can be nerfed at any time.

 

if you don't... well, you keep the original tank together with the special MM fighting only other premiums. And wait in queue how much it might be needed.

 

Anyway, there are probably a bazillion ways for WG to skirt around the law and get away with rebalancing premiums. Without corporate restructuring or anything that fancy. Problem is they don't want to. As they think it'd affect their future revenues by a lot. Not refunds, but future revenues. Next time they sell the defender, ppl. won't flock because it's supposedly OP. Knowing it can be hit anytime with the nerfbat.

 

Their whole marketing is built around "we can't change premiums due to law". They find 10 muppets on the forums talking about their rights which plays right into their marketing. And that's that... 20% hp/dmg increase so we don't change premium tanks gold dmg. Ok, we change HE mechanics on premiums too, but that's it, suck that one and go sue us :P

 

And in general, not doing any rebalance because they can always come up with this [edited]perfect excuse...

 

p.s. - look at this Valentine offer. We're back to 50% discount on consumables.

 

They inject a f ton of credits during holidays to increase their damn loot boxes sales. And they don't bother to drain them out afterwards because ppl. complained on the forums about lower discounts. Despite the fact they should do that for the health of the game.

 

The perfect excuse. It's not our fault; players were not happy. We would, because, you know, we're responsible and crap, but players... man, we couldn't do what was needed.


Edited by snowlywhite, 16 February 2020 - 06:30 PM.


TungstenHitman #128 Posted 16 February 2020 - 06:36 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 33399 battles
  • 6,808
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

So it would therefore appear that this hp and ammo re-balance is purely for an in-game economics reason to bleed players of more credits since they will have to shoot more premium ammo to achieve the same thing in situations that requires which is a lot of situations especially as bottom tier and the ever increasing armor with the desired consequence of players being more economically tied to running a premium account than they are now. 

 

The difficulty I am still getting my head around with all this is if WG feel they can legally alter money purchased goods values, as in premium tanks, without any issues then surely they would also feel they can legally alter the money purchased goods values like premium or "gold" ammo surely? Since there is no difference here? To alter one means they can alter the other too? It would therefore have made far more sense to simply nerf premium ammo by 20% for the same desired effect without upsetting players accounts via their damage dealing statistic with a hp increase and this is something I still don't understand why they did it do you?

 

Also, if premium ammo values somehow IS a legal issue that cannot be touched, why simply stop selling it with the new patch and add a new ammo type to the game which is effectively exactly the same ammo type only 20% less damage? That way, for the few rare accounts that stocked up heavily on the current premium ammo, at some stage they would simply use it all up since it cannot be replenished since it would no longer be sold. For most accounts I'd imagine the current premium ammo stocks run no deeper than what's currently in their tanks so very quickly the current "gold" ammo would pass into extinction and get replaced with the new offering of premium ammo that's 20% less alpha and legally speaking, if any, WG would not have altered the current gold ammo just simply stopped selling it.  

 


Edited by TungstenHitman, 16 February 2020 - 06:45 PM.


ThorgrimBrenadim #129 Posted 16 February 2020 - 06:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

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

View Postsnowlywhite, on 16 February 2020 - 06:23 PM, said:

 

what I suggested was simply a change in MM. Premiums can only fight premiums. You bought a tank, not a MM. If you want to get the normal MM, you agree to a swap of your premium tank with an identical one. The identical one(with a different name) you didn't bought and can be nerfed at any time.

 

if you don't... well, you keep the original tank together with the special MM fighting only other premiums. And wait in queue how much it might be needed.

 

Anyway, there are probably a bazillion ways for WG to skirt around the law and get away with rebalancing premiums. Without corporate restructuring or anything that fancy. Problem is they don't want to. As they think it'd affect their future revenues by a lot. Not refunds, but future revenues. Next time they sell the defender, ppl. won't flock because it's supposedly OP. Knowing it can be hit anytime with the nerfbat.

 

Their whole marketing is built around "we can't change premiums due to law". They find 10 muppets on the forums talking about their rights which plays right into their marketing. And that's that... 20% hp/dmg increase so we don't change premium tanks gold dmg. Ok, we change HE mechanics on premiums too, but that's it, suck that one and go sue us :P

 

And in general, not doing any rebalance because they can always come up with this [edited]perfect excuse...

 

Do you think it is clever being insultive to other forum members ??

I view your comments as borderline please either discuss this like an adult or just sit back and read the comments. But their is no reason to continually call others muppets and other names because you yourself do not understand the law and how it works.

 

Consumer rights also does not fall right into a company's marketing in fact ignorance of rights more often than not does.

The only things you have said so far that have any logic any sense to them are that wargaming could find a lot of ways to skirt round the issue and they do not because it would potentially effect their future revenue.

Changing the MM so old premiums can only meet old premiums potentially could hold up in court but it is far to risky ground for any company to even consider, as due to the much lower number of premiums it would make these games almost impossible to play in a meaningful normal way.

This also is very unlikely as has been mentioned by others and myself they have set presidents with tanks like the E25 and would be hard pressed to answer why they did not just do the same again.



Element6 #130 Posted 16 February 2020 - 07:18 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 - 04:29 PM, said:

 First point maybe not few will read it and not sure how long ago this was but if quite a long time ago then less fought for their rights and also consumer rights where not as strong as they are now.

 

That is the point of why some companies have unfair ToS etc because they know many will just believe that must be correct and the company wins by default ( pretty cheapo way to win most cases ). As I said before re policy how often do you hear company's say "well our policy is this or that's our policy to us the customers/public. yet we are not bound by any company policy unless we work/are paid by them as an employee or contractor.

Many companies are as they identify conflicts between ToS and law changing the ToS to fall in line with law. ToS and EULA can be soo long winded that it takes issues raised to identify a problem.

Have you ever read through pages and pages of legal documents it is mind numbing to say the least. As a lay person it is even worse half the time you see they say one condition in about ten different ways. It is like they are trying to find every single last loop hole and plug it but without the real knowledge to know what all the loopholes can be and instead of doing what you and me would do and coming up with a catch all ( an example I use is corporate tax ie Starbucks and Amazon avoiding it, my attitude rather than trying to find every loophole and block it to which you know others will look for any loophole not blocked and there are always many, just say "every company pay the due level of tax in the spirt of fair taxation, no exceptions unless granted by the state ) This would mean these company's pay the full tax and must petition the gov for any discount and it is at the sole discretion of said gov if they grant any tax relief.

Maybe less fought for their rights in the past, but wages and fees have gone up, so the economic toll on taking a loss, as an individual, has risen. Maybe that is a deterrent. Who knows, maybe only a fraction of the owners of a given tank would seek a refund, making the loss for WG negligible compared to any planned positive effects for them, coming from a change. I'm not going to take any refund even if they shove it in my face, I've bought a tank and would like to keep it, doesn't matter if it gets changed along with everything else in a grand rebalance of the game.

 

Maybe if I was determined I was entitled to keeping a certain set of stats for a tank, so that it became stronger than most other tanks and thus making it OP, I would be voicing my rights, but I do not think I am entitled to that, so I won't. I couldn't care less if they decided to rework the camo after fire for the E25 either, because I would look a bit silly if I was opposing balance to the game. Now, you might have seen me "defending" imbalance in the game before, which is not really true but I suspect some players think that. There is namely a difference between understanding why a company keeps imbalance in their game, and arguing I want it.

 

View PostRaxipIx, on 16 February 2020 - 06:03 PM, said:

When was that nerf? In terms of years? I hope you understand that a lot can happen in i don't know 7years? Might be even more since i didn't find and exact date of the change, but then year 2013  i started finding topics about it.

 

I assume that since that time  up until this time a lot has changed in consumer rights, especially in the area of digital goods. The  EU directive on consumer law has been amended several times over the years to fix problems.  

I have no idea when it was, I learned of it in this thread so I asked about it. 

 

Maybe there has been a strong development on this issue that I've failed to notice, and that consumers are taking their rights to court over videogames, but the only thing I've actually seen is complaints that players from the Netherlands cannot buy lootboxes. Apparently they do not like that consumer protection prevents them from "gambling" with their money.

 



Bracciano_gatto #131 Posted 16 February 2020 - 07:32 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3591 battles
  • 458
  • Member since:
    09-07-2018

You signed your life away when you downloaded WoT :)

 

 



Bulldog_Drummond #132 Posted 16 February 2020 - 07:57 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35735 battles
  • 11,875
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostBracciano_gatto, on 16 February 2020 - 06:32 PM, said:

You signed your life away when you downloaded WoT :)

 

 

 

It's so funny to see people writing long posts to complain about things of no importance

On average WoT has probably cost me the price of a daily cigarette

I'd see that as good value for the entertainment

If it goes bust I won't be devastated



_Signal_ #133 Posted 16 February 2020 - 08:38 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 49266 battles
  • 6,801
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011

View PostSteel_Patriot, on 14 February 2020 - 10:40 PM, said:

Here in Ireland any "Digital Goods bought cannot be changed without offering a REFUND in total " . It has been protected by law for years . 

To the naysayers saying good luck with that . Straight up WG will have no choice as well as losing all credibility by their own paying playerbase .  Don't get me wrong , they can change it but offering "GOLD/CREDITS" is a non starter .  It will have to be a Full cash refund if you bought it for cash.

 

well technically they arent changing the tank just the ammo so I imagine that law even if "real" doesn;t apply.



ThorgrimBrenadim #134 Posted 16 February 2020 - 10:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

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

View PostElement6, on 16 February 2020 - 07:18 PM, said:

Maybe less fought for their rights in the past, but wages and fees have gone up, so the economic toll on taking a loss, as an individual, has risen. Maybe that is a deterrent. Who knows, maybe only a fraction of the owners of a given tank would seek a refund, making the loss for WG negligible compared to any planned positive effects for them, coming from a change. I'm not going to take any refund even if they shove it in my face, I've bought a tank and would like to keep it, doesn't matter if it gets changed along with everything else in a grand rebalance of the game.

 

Maybe if I was determined I was entitled to keeping a certain set of stats for a tank, so that it became stronger than most other tanks and thus making it OP, I would be voicing my rights, but I do not think I am entitled to that, so I won't. I couldn't care less if they decided to rework the camo after fire for the E25 either, because I would look a bit silly if I was opposing balance to the game. Now, you might have seen me "defending" imbalance in the game before, which is not really true but I suspect some players think that. There is namely a difference between understanding why a company keeps imbalance in their game, and arguing I want it.

 

I have no idea when it was, I learned of it in this thread so I asked about it. 

 

Maybe there has been a strong development on this issue that I've failed to notice, and that consumers are taking their rights to court over videogames, but the only thing I've actually seen is complaints that players from the Netherlands cannot buy lootboxes. Apparently they do not like that consumer protection prevents them from "gambling" with their money.

 


I would be similar for probably 60-80% of my premium tanks but a few I am not sure, I would have to see how much any changes effected their game play. If that change did make the tanks less enjoyable to play then some in game compensation would be nice and would be appreciated how much depends on how much they change but it starts at zero and goes up to almost full cost for those. As I have said though we need to be fair with wargaming as well.

 

Regarding loot boxes I do not like them to me it is gambling and I can fully understand them being banned, but on the flip side I also respect that it is someone else's choice to spend money on them and I have no right to deny them that choice.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users