Jump to content


Answer Me This Question About Premium Tanks Legal Protection


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

Spammable_Lecter #21 Posted 15 February 2020 - 10:33 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46633 battles
  • 592
  • [_DOG] _DOG
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View PostElement6, on 14 February 2020 - 10:58 PM, said:

Source?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taken straight off the" Irish Consumer Protection Law " website , it also covers all digital goods bought in the EU from any country in the EU . It falls under the Conumer protection Act 2007 . The consumer rights Directive of 2014 . .Part of it says Digital goods bought are classed as a contract between the buyer and the seller . Changing any part of said contract the buyer has the right to ask for a full refund within 15 days. Denying that WG would fall under the category below

 

What are the sanctions and penalties if you are found to be in breach of consumer protection law?

The CCPC has a range of powers to help achieve compliance with consumer protection law. These are:

  • Prosecution
  • Prohibition orders
  • Compliance notices
  • Undertakings
  • Fixed payment notices

Additional information is included in the Enforcement section

 



spuriousmonkey #22 Posted 15 February 2020 - 10:44 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 46359 battles
  • 3,427
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011
excuse me. We switched to HD models at one point. None of the old premium tanks are still the same.

BravelyRanAway #23 Posted 15 February 2020 - 11:35 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 25036 battles
  • 13,002
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View PostTungstenHitman, on 14 February 2020 - 11:04 PM, said:

 

No I get that and you're not following my question. If ammo is considered a separate entity from the premium vehicle itself, then why not simply nerf premium ammo 20% instead of going to all this trouble, since premium ammo is still  just an ammo type and not the tank itself?

I do follow your question. My reply was with regard to the reluctance to change premium tank stats and that may be a legal quagmire into which they are not going to dive into again. Changing ammo possibly could be done, but......

You're assuming that there's some kind of 'legal' reason for not nerfing premium ammo...which may not be the case at all.

It might be that they don't want to touch their greatest credit sink in the game.

 

Afterall, the BM was designed (as well as a bit of fun) to take credits and Gold out of the game, to me it feels like a response to the credit making in FL. Now, we see they're going to reduce the FL down to four weeks too, I'll assume they're trying to stop players like me building up 40-60 million credits in a short space of time.....which does affect 'premium time' uptake, why buy premium if you can make enough credits to last a year in a fun mode?

I'd say most people(if the business was theirs) would be reluctant to make big changes in a game that has just over 4,500 employees, as changes can cost jobs, that's quite a responsibility.

So, I'll just guess, that the decisions made are business based and not legal.(Yes, I could be wrong) 

WG has tried to diversify with other games to spread the risk, but that doesn't seem to be working. So, making changes to a single game that is 'more or less' your main income can be quite daunting.

Some might see that as greed and some may see it as a very difficult business move. 

 



CmdRatScabies #24 Posted 15 February 2020 - 12:05 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 6,115
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostStrappster, on 15 February 2020 - 12:45 AM, said:

Increasing the damage of standard shells is an interesting change. It's effectively a buff, which implies the removal of HE penetration has been evaluated as the lowest cause for complaint. Most tanks only carry a few HE rounds for resetting the cap so it's not as though most players would notice it (and therefore ask for refunds). The strength of the wheelies comes from their mobility more than their HE shells and I suspect the few players who'd demand a refund for their premium wheelie on the basis that one shell type has changed has been factored into the analysis.

HE is a minor factor on most premiums and they might argue the change is immaterial - dare say they have stats to show it never gets used.

I suspect they could safely offer refunds on the wheelie without much danger of it being taken up by many. 

Tanks like the KV2® are remaining effectively unchanged I believe. 

Bit more grey would be the bulldogs advertised on the strength of HE. 

So if there's an outcry maybe a few more tanks will get selected for the KV2 treatment?

 

I suspect that most of this outcry is players not happy with the HE nerf just using the Premium tanks as an argument though.



Element6 #25 Posted 15 February 2020 - 12:50 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33194 battles
  • 11,875
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostSteel_Patriot, on 15 February 2020 - 10:33 AM, said:

Taken straight off the" Irish Consumer Protection Law " website , it also covers all digital goods bought in the EU from any country in the EU . It falls under the Conumer protection Act 2007 . The consumer rights Directive of 2014 . .Part of it says Digital goods bought are classed as a contract between the buyer and the seller . Changing any part of said contract the buyer has the right to ask for a full refund within 15 days. Denying that WG would fall under the category below

 

What are the sanctions and penalties if you are found to be in breach of consumer protection law?

The CCPC has a range of powers to help achieve compliance with consumer protection law. These are:

  • Prosecution
  • Prohibition orders
  • Compliance notices
  • Undertakings
  • Fixed payment notices

Additional information is included in the Enforcement section

If ammo types change, then the changes to one tank is relative to a different tank, I.E the "goods" should relatively speaking be just about the same as before. I highly doubt that would fall under a breech of contract. On the other hand, if you bought a CDC and then WG changed things so that you could no longer use it in Randoms, but only in FL and CW, then the product would no longer be as advertised.

 

There's also this;

Block Quote

 It is important to note that there are no hard and fast rules as to which remedy you should be entitled to. When seeking redress for problems with goods or services the circumstances of each individual case must be taken into account.

Seeing as how your "goods" has not been nerfed or made worse as a single entity, but is rather part of a change to the entire system...arguing that you are entitled to a refund becuase a numerical parameter of that tank changed, when it also changes in every other tank....I'd defintely say good luck with that. 

 



CmdRatScabies #26 Posted 15 February 2020 - 01:02 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 6,115
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015
Where did ArthurWellesley go?  Haven't seen a post in a while.

Nishi_Kinuyo #27 Posted 15 February 2020 - 01:12 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 10544 battles
  • 7,241
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostStrappster, on 15 February 2020 - 12:45 AM, said:

You're not wrong but the argument being made is that a tank is sold with given statistics - penetration values for each type of ammo. Changing the penetration is therefore a change to the parameters of the tank, how the ammo is purchased in game is immaterial to that.

So you're saying, that a techtree tank and a premium tank with the exact same cannon and ammunition, can't be balanced equally with ammo?



xtrem3x #28 Posted 15 February 2020 - 01:20 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36450 battles
  • 1,995
  • [EFE-X] EFE-X
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 15 February 2020 - 11:05 AM, said:

HE is a minor factor on most premiums and they might argue the change is immaterial - dare say they have stats to show it never gets used.

I suspect they could safely offer refunds on the wheelie without much danger of it being taken up by many. 

Tanks like the KV2® are remaining effectively unchanged I believe. 

Bit more grey would be the bulldogs advertised on the strength of HE. 

So if there's an outcry maybe a few more tanks will get selected for the KV2 treatment?

 

I suspect that most of this outcry is players not happy with the HE nerf just using the Premium tanks as an argument though.

 

While the KV2® isn't being nerfed it is still being indirectly effected.

 

The AP rounds have been buffed in line with all the other changes, but the HE remains the same which means after the update the HE shell only does ~50 average damage more on a penetrating shot. With the unreliability of HE penning this means that the majority of the time it's better for the KV2 to just use normal AP after the update. Yes the HE can still pen lightly armoured tanks reliably and is still good to do damage against strong tier 8s but it's no longer as effective. Given that all tanks have 20% more HP but the KV2's HE remains unchanged means the LOL factor is removed completely



DangerMouse #29 Posted 15 February 2020 - 01:47 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 31358 battles
  • 1,405
  • [FLOG] FLOG
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

Check out WG own advertising for the Senlac, how can they remove it's HE pen and claim it's not a negative change to a tank I paid real money for, they even highlight it i green for us!

 

https://worldoftanks.eu/en/content/guide/tank-manuals/fv1066-senlac/

 



24doom24 #30 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:00 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9240 battles
  • 1,231
  • [WW3] WW3
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 14 February 2020 - 10:19 PM, said:

 

...so you're saying, someone went and changed the standard ammo on the SU-100Y, giving it higher damage and pen than premium ammo, and thought "Yes, that's right. That's correct. Nothing wrong here. Job done."

 

Go on the balance test and see for yourself. It's true!



SovietBias #31 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:01 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40080 battles
  • 1,876
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostDangerMouse, on 15 February 2020 - 12:47 PM, said:

Check out WG own advertising for the Senlac, how can they remove it's HE pen and claim it's not a negative change to a tank I paid real money for, they even highlight it i green for us!

 

https://worldoftanks.eu/en/content/guide/tank-manuals/fv1066-senlac/

 


Lol. GG



Strappster #32 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29234 battles
  • 11,578
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 15 February 2020 - 11:05 AM, said:

HE is a minor factor on most premiums and they might argue the change is immaterial - dare say they have stats to show it never gets used.

I suspect they could safely offer refunds on the wheelie without much danger of it being taken up by many. 

Tanks like the KV2® are remaining effectively unchanged I believe. 

Bit more grey would be the bulldogs advertised on the strength of HE. 

So if there's an outcry maybe a few more tanks will get selected for the KV2 treatment?

 

I suspect that most of this outcry is players not happy with the HE nerf just using the Premium tanks as an argument though.

 

I agree, though there is a small part of me that looks at some of the premium tanks I never play and wonders whether I should ask for a refund (gold is fine) on the basis that an advertised statistic (HE penetration) has been altered without my explicit consent. It's the same principle as when they proposed removing PMM from tier 8 premiums, though I admit it's much less of a game-changer on tanks where I only fire HE to reset caps or during the hunt for the last arty.

 

A change is a change - consumer laws don't specify a minimum amount of change to qualify.

 

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 15 February 2020 - 12:12 PM, said:

So you're saying, that a techtree tank and a premium tank with the exact same cannon and ammunition, can't be balanced equally with ammo?

 

No, I'm saying that if you offer a tank for sale stating that its penetration values are 200/250/50 and later change that to 200/250/0, that's a change to the advertised parameters of the premium tank.

 

Similarly, if you advertise a tank with damage values of 240/240/360 and later change that to 300/240/360, it's still a change to the advertised parameters. No one complains about that, however, because it's a buff.

 

The problem WG have is that they set their own precedent back in the day when they offered refunds on the Spershing after nerfing it. People know that it's possible to get their money back, therefore they'll look for opportunities to do so when a change is proposed that they don't like.



CmdRatScabies #33 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:14 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 6,115
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostStrappster, on 15 February 2020 - 02:02 PM, said:

 

I agree, though there is a small part of me that looks at some of the premium tanks I never play and wonders whether I should ask for a refund (gold is fine) on the basis that an advertised statistic (HE penetration) has been altered without my explicit consent. It's the same principle as when they proposed removing PMM from tier 8 premiums, though I admit it's much less of a game-changer on tanks where I only fire HE to reset caps or during the hunt for the last arty.

 

A change is a change - consumer laws don't specify a minimum amount of change to qualify.

 

 

No, I'm saying that if you offer a tank for sale stating that its penetration values are 200/250/50 and later change that to 200/250/0, that's a change to the advertised parameters of the premium tank.

 

Similarly, if you advertise a tank with damage values of 240/240/360 and later change that to 300/240/360, it's still a change to the advertised parameters. No one complains about that, however, because it's a buff.

 

The problem WG have is that they set their own precedent back in the day when they offered refunds on the Spershing after nerfing it. People know that it's possible to get their money back, therefore they'll look for opportunities to do so when a change is proposed that they don't like.

I wouldn't be sure that trivial / non material changes got you nothing or a very small compensation, otherwise we could have all asked for refunds when they went HD.   Very tricky for WG to argue when they used HE as part of their sales blurb on tanks like the Senlac though.  

I bet they're wishing they'd changed the ammo on the Lefh and Sexton so that they had a useful precedent now.



Strappster #34 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:18 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29234 battles
  • 11,578
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 15 February 2020 - 01:14 PM, said:

I wouldn't be sure that trivial / non material changes got you nothing or a very small compensation, otherwise we could have all asked for refunds when they went HD.

 

But we could. No one did because it made everything look nicer (well, most things ... glances at E 50 gun mantlet) but that doesn't change the fact that the opportunity was there. It simply doesn't get discussed unless it's a nerf.



CmdRatScabies #35 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:24 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 6,115
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostStrappster, on 15 February 2020 - 02:18 PM, said:

 

But we could. No one did because it made everything look nicer (well, most things ... glances at E 50 gun mantlet) but that doesn't change the fact that the opportunity was there. It simply doesn't get discussed unless it's a nerf.

So if any "change" counts then refund after a buff?  I have a garage full of useless premiums I'd love to ditch for cash or gold.


Edited by CmdRatScabies, 15 February 2020 - 02:25 PM.


SovietBias #36 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:31 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40080 battles
  • 1,876
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 15 February 2020 - 01:24 PM, said:

So if any "change" counts then refund after a buff?  I have a garage full of useless premiums I'd love to ditch for cash or gold.


You generally ask for compensation when something is not up to what you expected / performs worse.

Not when it exceeds your expectations.



Element6 #37 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33194 battles
  • 11,875
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View Post24doom24, on 15 February 2020 - 02:00 PM, said:

Go on the balance test and see for yourself. It's true!

Sandbox is a concept testbed, not a balance testbed, so nobody should be surprised if some things are a bit off.



CmdRatScabies #38 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:40 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 6,115
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostSovietBias, on 15 February 2020 - 02:31 PM, said:


You generally ask for compensation when something is not up to what you expected / performs worse.

Not when it exceeds your expectations.

And you'd normally expect the compensation to match the deficiency.  So trivial nerf = trivial compensation rather than a refund.  It's what I'd expect anyway. 

And WG will be able to argue that some of the tanks "nerfed" because of HE have compensatory buffs - greater resistance to HE so I would expect the net deficiency to be neutral / buff apart from in a handful of cases.



m1x_angelico #39 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27981 battles
  • 1,545
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

View PostStrappster, on 15 February 2020 - 02:02 PM, said:

No, I'm saying that if you offer a tank for sale stating that its penetration values are 200/250/50 and later change that to 200/250/0, that's a change to the advertised parameters of the premium tank.

 

Similarly, if you advertise a tank with damage values of 240/240/360 and later change that to 300/240/360, it's still a change to the advertised parameters. No one complains about that, however, because it's a buff.

 

That's precisely the point.

 

However, one must have in mind that not all countries have same or similar level of protection. E.g. Ireland seems to have formalized protection of digital assets. I know at least few countries where WG operates (my country included) where protection of digital assets would fall on general provisions of consumer protection or even laws re contracts and torts.

 

It would be interesting to see what will be the damage from this "rebalance". If they actually overall "buff" premium tanks or it is not evident they nerfed them, then I predict there wont be much complaints or requests for a refund.



CmdRatScabies #40 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:57 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 6,115
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View Postm1x_angelico, on 15 February 2020 - 02:47 PM, said:

It would be interesting to see what will be the damage from this "rebalance". If they actually overall "buff" premium tanks or it is not evident they nerfed them, then I predict there wont be much complaints or requests for a refund.

Some premiums are definitely nerfed - many of the older premiums that rely on gold ammo to counter the increased armour in the game are going to suffer further and be eye-wateringly expensive to play.  






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users