Jump to content


Answer Me This Question About Premium Tanks Legal Protection


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

burbage1 #41 Posted 15 February 2020 - 03:10 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 1465 battles
  • 194
  • Member since:
    09-09-2017
If they up-armour the targets and change what happens when a shell hits, they haven't changed the tank that fired the shell. They have changed its effectiveness, but I don't recall WG ever marketing any tank as OP.

snowlywhite #42 Posted 15 February 2020 - 03:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29074 battles
  • 756
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

View PostRaxipIx, on 15 February 2020 - 08:54 AM, said:

Digital content to be as described

(1)Every contract to supply digital content is to be treated as including a term that the digital content will match any description of it given by the trader to the consumer.

(2)Where the consumer examines a trial version before the contract is made, it is not sufficient that the digital content matches (or is better than) the trial version if the digital content does not also match any description of it given by the trader to the consumer.

(3)Any information that is provided by the trader about the digital content that is information mentioned in paragraph (a), (j) or (k) of Schedule 1 or paragraph (a), (v) or (w) of Schedule 2 (main characteristics, functionality and compatibility) to the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3134) is to be treated as included as a term of the contract.

(4)A change to any of that information, made before entering into the contract or later, is not effective unless expressly agreed between the consumer and the trader.

(5)See section 42 for a consumer’s rights if the trader is in breach of a term that this section requires to be treated as included in a contract.

 

 

 

This is a paragraph from EU's consumer rights act. 2015.

 

this is a paragraph from uk consumer rights act of 2015. Not EU.

 

http://www.legislati...nacted/data.htm

 

unless the uk parliament legislates now for EU :P

 

p.s. - also, you check the mentioned section 42, probably you're entitled to a price reduction. I'm sure they're be a whole buncha people going through the hassle to get a couple of euros back.


Edited by snowlywhite, 15 February 2020 - 03:26 PM.


Strappster #43 Posted 15 February 2020 - 03:25 PM

    Field Marshal

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

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.

 

That's my understanding, though the usual not a lawyer disclaimer applies. I refer you to Raxi's post from earlier in this thread, copied in the spoiler below.

 

Spoiler

 

A change is a change, there's no caveat to whether it's generally considered to be a positive or negative change.

 

I suspect this is something that won't go anywhere unless we have a test case. WG can afford to employ professionals who specialise in this area and we're a bunch of players who've looked up some stuff online. That said, if this does make it to live then I doubt I'd be alone in submitting a ticket asking for a refund on certain premiums that I bought in haste.

 

Makes me wonder what WG have planned as a response to such tickets. It's clearly a change to an advertised value so they might struggle to make a case on that point. They might play a reversal and remove all of a player's premium tanks - if you object to the change on one premium, why would you want to keep any of the others, right?



SovietBias #44 Posted 15 February 2020 - 03:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40083 battles
  • 1,878
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 15 February 2020 - 01:40 PM, said:

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.

 

Even if the compensation matches deficiency, the nerfs are not trivial. And buffs are not "compensatory" as you probably need to agree with the compensation to begin with.



Jumping_Turtle #45 Posted 15 February 2020 - 03:32 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 73520 battles
  • 8,594
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostTungstenHitman, on 14 February 2020 - 10:46 PM, said:

 which makes it appear as though there's some legal protection which prevents them from doing so? 

 

dont know if it is true but I once heard the story that there are litterly billions and billions of shells still in the game that people bought with gold. Before they changed that to credits and that those cant be nerfed due to refund danger. What if thousands and thousands of old 'forgotten' acounts suddenly noticed this and ask for a refund ...



CmdRatScabies #46 Posted 15 February 2020 - 03:39 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 6,119
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostStrappster, on 15 February 2020 - 03:25 PM, said:

A change is a change, there's no caveat to whether it's generally considered to be a positive or negative change.

 

I suspect this is something that won't go anywhere unless we have a test case. WG can afford to employ professionals who specialise in this area and we're a bunch of players who've looked up some stuff online. That said, if this does make it to live then I doubt I'd be alone in submitting a ticket asking for a refund on certain premiums that I bought in haste.

 

Makes me wonder what WG have planned as a response to such tickets. It's clearly a change to an advertised value so they might struggle to make a case on that point. They might play a reversal and remove all of a player's premium tanks - if you object to the change on one premium, why would you want to keep any of the others, right?

Yes change is change but I'd expect the remedy / compensation to be dependent on the impact of the change.  I doubt we are in a situation where the remedy is predetermined and triggered by any change.



TungstenHitman #47 Posted 15 February 2020 - 03:52 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 33004 battles
  • 6,686
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 15 February 2020 - 10:35 AM, said:

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. 

 

 

Possibly. There's also more to it than simply nerfing premium ammo by buffing and re-balancing other aspects. What do I mean by that? Well lets put it this way. If WG simply nerfed premium ammo and left everything else as it is then that's achieved the desired effect of nerfing premium ammo obviously while also increasing this ammo as a credit sink since you'd have to use more of it to achieve the same thing of course. They could have also removed HE pen just the same as sandbox. But why go to all the trouble of buffing standard ammo and hp by about 20% too? Well think about it, not only will this hp and standard ammo buff directly both buff and nerf premium tanks at the same time but it will buff and nerf ALL tanks in the game while creating and even more unfair and imbalanced 3 tier MM and a more unfair imbalanced game overall.

 

But how will buffing HP and standard ammo make an even more unfair 3 tier MM? Simple, it's opening the gap between these tiers even more. Think about it. If you purchase lets say a T8 Patriot and end up as bottom tier in a tier10 battle against lets say an E100, the gap between these tanks with the proposed re-balance is much greater than it currently is. How so? Well, lets do the math, if it's a 20% across the board give or take. 20% of greater figure is more gain while equally 20% of a smaller figure is less gain. So a Patriot with 1500 hp +20% is only gaining +300 hp while the E100 with 2700 hp is gaining +540 hp, almost twice that of the T8, so the T10 becomes even more stronger vs T8 than it already is now and this applies across all tiers obviously.

 

Couple to that the standard ammo buff and the gap between tiers is even bigger again, though not always as alpha is variable between guns and you can have small cal high tiers and big cal low tiers. But lets use those two examples again. So the T8 Patriots standard ammo has 240 alpha gets +20%, that's only +48 alpha while the T10 E100s standard ammo has 700 alpha so when that gets +20% it gains +140 alpha. That's nearly 3 times more than the T8 Patriot.

 

So under the new sandbox re-balance meta, when these T8 and T10 tanks face each other the performance gap is suddenly much great than it currently is. You have is Patriot with 1800hp and 288 alpha facing an E100 with 3240 hp and 840 alpha... it's a much bigger gap all of a sudden isn't it? It's more like a T8 vs a T11. Of course, on these small and hull down map, the Patriot, being a heavy tank is most likely going to have little option but to use premium ammo to pen a tank like that so that's at 240 alpha instead of 288 standard alpha and the gap just becomes bigger still, and even more expensive since it will take more premium than standard to wash away that T10 hp value but there's no way the standard pens and HE does no damage as such so... what ya gonna do?

 

On the flip side of that this performance gap in tiers works both ways. As you can see from above, while the T8 is at even more of a disadvantage vs higher tiers, equally it will have that same sort of advantage when it's fighting lower tiers since a T6 will stand to gain less hp than the T8. So it's really looking like a whole new game. Is a game with even more of a performance gap between tiers that creates even more unfair and imbalance going to be a better game? Hard to see how it would tbh. So far as premium tanks go, it will be more effective against lower tiers and less effective against higher tiers. Is that a case of completely altering the product? Yes, but can they? I don't know obviously. Thing is, WG can outline their stance on altering purchased products but just because they made their "rules" about it doesn't mean they are above consumer law which would overrule something that was in clear violation of a law. Are they in violation of any laws? Well, we will see. My guess is WG are not that stupid and would have done their homework on the matter. To me it seems that this is more of a complete re-balance around in-game economics.


Edited by TungstenHitman, 15 February 2020 - 03:56 PM.


snowlywhite #48 Posted 15 February 2020 - 04:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29074 battles
  • 756
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

that's faulty math; if my hp(the target) increases by 20% and your alpha increases by the same %, you'd kill me in exactly the same # of shots.

 

p.s. - the buff is indirect. If before you loaded gold and had a chance to pen an e100, now you'll still load gold to pen, but you do 25% less dmg. Ok, e100 is a bad example, as with patriot most of the time you either pen with standard or you don't pen at all.

 

summing it up: ok, you'll probably have to carry more gold due to MM still being left +2, but that's hardly a reason for refund.


Edited by snowlywhite, 15 February 2020 - 04:56 PM.


Long_Range_Sniper #49 Posted 15 February 2020 - 04:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 40064 battles
  • 11,253
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011
Where's Tr0glodyte when you need him.

m1x_angelico #50 Posted 15 February 2020 - 05:30 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28012 battles
  • 1,546
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 15 February 2020 - 04:52 PM, said:

Where's Tr0glodyte when you need him.

 

Probably not thinking of you...

 

Anyhow, the issue is that there is little case law on this. However, if any of my clan mates ultimately wished to sue WG over this, provided that changes are negative to their digital assets (premium tanks that they purchased), I would be happy to represent them for free, just to see what will be the outcome.



Long_Range_Sniper #51 Posted 15 February 2020 - 05:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 40064 battles
  • 11,253
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011
A good friend of mine told me once told me that the first step is understanding whether you're dealing with goods or services. But as he's a barrister, I had to stop him saying anything more in case I went over my free thirty seconds. I've known him for 20 years, but that wouldn't stop him billing me.

CmdRatScabies #52 Posted 15 February 2020 - 06:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 6,119
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 15 February 2020 - 05:38 PM, said:

A good friend of mine told me once told me that the first step is understanding whether you're dealing with goods or services. But as he's a barrister, I had to stop him saying anything more in case I went over my free thirty seconds. I've known him for 20 years, but that wouldn't stop him billing me.

This'll be why Arthur Wellesley hasn't shown up - no billing mechanism.  :trollface:



ThorgrimBrenadim #53 Posted 15 February 2020 - 08:02 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37111 battles
  • 839
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View PostElement6, on 14 February 2020 - 11:03 PM, said:

Unless they have changed the EULA, they can terminate your account for any reason, or no reason, without even having to notify you. I would be very surprised if anything could stop them from doing anything they please, given that we sing this thing when we install the game and start it. So I doubt there is any legal binding at play here.

 

Have you not learned that when WG says something, you get the distinct feeling they are only telling you a fraction of what is really their plan?

Good luck to them doing that most people seem to forget any agreement which includes an EULA must be fair to both parties and as in almost all cases between an individual and a company the company have to ensure it is fair or it is worthless. So NO! wargaming can not legally/lawfully terminate your account for ANY ! reason they have to have a valid reason that can hold up if challenged.

As Wargamming relocated to should we say a sunnier climate they have now come even more firmly under EU rules. They can not nerf premiums this has been shown with the Lehf and the E25 as just two examples. If they do they either offer compensation or full/partial refund or they risk being sued.

19:08 Added after 5 minute

View PostTungstenHitman, on 15 February 2020 - 12:04 AM, 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?

 

When you factor that WG are changing the HP of the premium tank, albeit a positive buff, they are STILL directly altering the purchased product and doing so without customer consent, and yet while this is far more "guilty" of infringing on consumable rights than altering ammo which is a separate consumable to the tank, this is what WG have found to be legally more acceptable than simply nerfing a consumable? I don't get it. I also have to reflect on when WG offered full refunds for the proposed change of certain pref MM premium tanks to a standard MM status. So why are the required to offer full refunds for altering pref MM tanks and not for altering the original HP of a premium tank, a separate matter to altering the ammo consumables? How is altering a set of parameters on a purchased product acceptable, regardless of a it being a positive change via increased hp? Surely this is still changing a sold product without permission or refund alternative they must be obliged to offer or else why did they offer a full refund to pref MM premiums that were going to be altered albeit in a different way?


You bought a premium tank one way or another with cash ( maybe marathon reward tanks could be changed but only for those who earned them in the marathon , a really BIG nightmare for wargaming and not worth the trouble ) That came with a SET gun, a SET turret etc etc they advertised it with a given spec be it speed, armour or shell pen and damage and they CAN NOT ! change that without offering either compensation , a full refund etc etc to do so BREACHES ! EU law that is the end of the matter.

 

Now yes they can do it without but they loose a class action lawsuit. I do not think even wargaming are that stupid and past examples as I mentioned before hint very strongly they will not do it now.



Element6 #54 Posted 15 February 2020 - 08:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33256 battles
  • 11,884
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostThorgrimBrenadim, on 15 February 2020 - 08:02 PM, said:

Good luck to them doing that most people seem to forget any agreement which includes an EULA must be fair to both parties and as in almost all cases between an individual and a company the company have to ensure it is fair or it is worthless. So NO! wargaming can not legally/lawfully terminate your account for ANY ! reason they have to have a valid reason that can hold up if challenged.

As Wargamming relocated to should we say a sunnier climate they have now come even more firmly under EU rules. They can not nerf premiums this has been shown with the Lehf and the E25 as just two examples. If they do they either offer compensation or full/partial refund or they risk being sued.

Would you argue that providing a game for free, 100% free, where any and all spending is 100% voluntary, is not fair? That arguement would be an interesting read.

 

Use capitalization and exclamation marks at your own leisure.

 



ThorgrimBrenadim #55 Posted 15 February 2020 - 08:22 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37111 battles
  • 839
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View Postsnowlywhite, on 15 February 2020 - 03:19 PM, said:

 

this is a paragraph from uk consumer rights act of 2015. Not EU.

 

http://www.legislati...nacted/data.htm

 

unless the uk parliament legislates now for EU :P

 

p.s. - also, you check the mentioned section 42, probably you're entitled to a price reduction. I'm sure they're be a whole buncha people going through the hassle to get a couple of euros back.


Till we came out the UK had to mirror EU consumer law so there is pretty much no difference if someone posts UK, consumer law EU direct or any other EU member nation law. The EU is a wanna be Federal state of Europe and they enforce EU laws on all member states.

We can now start at looking going our own way but I believe the UK will still be a very close mirror to EU consumer rights for at least the next few years and after that hopefully we will enshrine even stronger consumer rights.

19:30 Added after 8 minute

View PostElement6, on 15 February 2020 - 08:14 PM, said:

Would you argue that providing a game for free, 100% free, where any and all spending is 100% voluntary, is not fair? That arguement would be an interesting read.

 

Use capitalization and exclamation marks at your own leisure.

 


Your comment makes no sense. It does not matter if you can play the game for free what matters is you spend money on something be it physical or digital goods they MUST match or exceed the description.

If wargaming reduced premium benefits by 20% then they would have to offer a refund be it in full or at least in part but most likely in full and then remove it. if you then decide to buy the new premium you do so then under a new agreement. Now they buffed premium not long ago and yes that is also a change but consumers do not complain if they get more only if they get less and the law clearly understands that.

If you go and buy a car from garage A guess what you did that voluntarily nobody forced you to go to that particular garage, but if that car does not meet or exceed the description then you can take action.

 

I note you give out snide remarks re CAPS yet fail to pick up on the real facts such as the E25 did not loose it's camo, the Lefh did not loose it's ability when arty was nerfed. 

 

These examples would if it came to a legal case ensure wargaming lost before they even got to the starting blocks. But though I complain strongly about issues in this game even I do not think wargaming are going to not do similar on the rework ie premiums will have to be excluded. Reward tanks can be altered we did not pay cash for them.



Element6 #56 Posted 15 February 2020 - 08:44 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33256 battles
  • 11,884
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostThorgrimBrenadim, on 15 February 2020 - 08:22 PM, said:

Your comment makes no sense. It does not matter if you can play the game for free what matters is you spend money on something be it physical or digital goods they MUST match or exceed the description.

If wargaming reduced premium benefits by 20% then they would have to offer a refund be it in full or at least in part but most likely in full and then remove it. if you then decide to buy the new premium you do so then under a new agreement. Now they buffed premium not long ago and yes that is also a change but consumers do not complain if they get more only if they get less and the law clearly understands that.

If you go and buy a car from garage A guess what you did that voluntarily nobody forced you to go to that particular garage, but if that car does not meet or exceed the description then you can take action.

 

I note you give out snide remarks re CAPS yet fail to pick up on the real facts such as the E25 did not loose it's camo, the Lefh did not loose it's ability when arty was nerfed. 

 

These examples would if it came to a legal case ensure wargaming lost before they even got to the starting blocks. But though I complain strongly about issues in this game even I do not think wargaming are going to not do similar on the rework ie premiums will have to be excluded. Reward tanks can be altered we did not pay cash for them.

Well, if you buy a tank, and then they to an ammo rework that affects all tanks, so that some of the numerical parameters of the tank you bought might be lowered/nerfed/use whatever applies, but remain comparably the same as they were before the rework, then it would still match or exceed the description, because everything has been shifted parallelly.

 

If you bought the same tank, and then they did not change a single parameter of that tank, but they increased the armor of all other non-premium tanks by 20%, your expectations would no longer be met, and they would definitely not exceed them. Is that grounds for a refund in your eyes?

 

Alternatively, if they released a new tech tree line, or two, on the same tier as the tank you bought, which your bought tank could only penetrate 10% of the time, when before the release you could penetrate all tanks with at least a 30% reliability, then your expectations would no longer be met or exceeded either. Would this also be grounds for a refund?

 

You don't have to change anything with the product you spent real money on for your expectations to be lowered, yet we have never heard of any lawsuits against WG. Why is that, you think?



Bulldog_Drummond #57 Posted 15 February 2020 - 09:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 34933 battles
  • 11,539
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostTungstenHitman, on 14 February 2020 - 09:46 PM, said:

Hi guys, not a rant or another "HE change" thread it's just a question relating to altering premium tanks and their ammo damage values in general. Basically what I want to know is how is it ok for WG to alter one ammo type and apparently not the other? In other wards, why is it apparently NOT ok for WG to change premium ammo values but it is ok for them to change all other types? If this is a legal matter, consumer law, then why only does it apply to premium ammo values and not all of them? What's the difference here?

 

There must be something legally binding because it was when you factor messing up players stats with new hp values and altering pretty much everything in the game other than premium ammo, clearly it's far more easy to simply nerf premium ammo 20% rather than having to go to far greater effort of altering everything else. But what's the difference here? How is changing everything else not infringing on whatever legal status prevents WG from touching premium ammo values? Perhaps they could have altered premium ammo values all along if they really wanted too and this just coincidentally wasn't part of their grand plan which makes it appear as though there's some legal protection which prevents them from doing so? 

 

I would encourage you to sue and make it a class action

 



ThorgrimBrenadim #58 Posted 15 February 2020 - 09:16 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37111 battles
  • 839
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View PostElement6, on 15 February 2020 - 08:44 PM, said:

Well, if you buy a tank, and then they to an ammo rework that affects all tanks, so that some of the numerical parameters of the tank you bought might be lowered/nerfed/use whatever applies, but remain comparably the same as they were before the rework, then it would still match or exceed the description, because everything has been shifted parallelly.

 

If you bought the same tank, and then they did not change a single parameter of that tank, but they increased the armor of all other non-premium tanks by 20%, your expectations would no longer be met, and they would definitely not exceed them. Is that grounds for a refund in your eyes?

 

Alternatively, if they released a new tech tree line, or two, on the same tier as the tank you bought, which your bought tank could only penetrate 10% of the time, when before the release you could penetrate all tanks with at least a 30% reliability, then your expectations would no longer be met or exceeded either. Would this also be grounds for a refund?

 

You don't have to change anything with the product you spent real money on for your expectations to be lowered, yet we have never heard of any lawsuits against WG. Why is that, you think?


Do you do this just to try and generate an argument??

 

If they buffed the armour of every single tank that was non premium guess what they did not change your premium from the specs you agreed upon when purchasing. 

Is it really this hard for you to understand ??

 

If they re-work ammo as suggested does not make any difference if it applies to all it is still a basic change in the agreed parameters when you purchased.

 

If they guaranteed you would pen lets say with your figure 30% or above success rate ( something they have never done so you are again not talking any sense but just trying to inflame this discussion ) and now you could only pen 10% or less then yes that is a fundamental change to the specs you and wargaming agreed upon when you entered a monetary agreement for services ie in this case a digital tank.

 

Oh and again no comment re the E25 and other premiums that have not had their specs changed even though the whole class of vehicle has had changes.


Edited by ThorgrimBrenadim, 15 February 2020 - 09:18 PM.


snowlywhite #59 Posted 15 February 2020 - 09:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29074 battles
  • 756
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

View PostThorgrimBrenadim, on 15 February 2020 - 08:22 PM, said:


Till we came out the UK had to mirror EU consumer law so there is pretty much no difference if someone posts UK, consumer law EU direct or any other EU member nation law. The EU is a wanna be Federal state of Europe and they enforce EU laws on all member states.

We can now start at looking going our own way but I believe the UK will still be a very close mirror to EU consumer rights for at least the next few years and after that hopefully we will enshrine even stronger consumer rights.

 

that's not how it works; eu gives a directive, member states have to put that directive into law.

 

anyway, the discussion is, as always when the topic comes in this forums, comical. WG can give you piss all and more or less nothing will happen. The reason why they don't is because it'd be a mega marketing fiasco. But legally, really...

 

ok, 5-10k nutties will start some action and maybe get a partial refund. Or probably a whole refund as I don't see why they'd bother fighting it. Rest probably will have better things to do with their lives...

 

money is the last problem. Problem is they can't anymore sell you this "nice, OP tank"(we have 10 CCs who say it's OP) and promise you they won't nerf it in the future. That's why they avoid it.

 

But eventually they'll have to start modifying premiums. This patch, if enacted, will be a disaster and they'll have to bite the bullet.

 

p.s. - in case anyone forgot there's no class action suite in EU. So... for the wannabe consumer fighters around, each of you would have to solve their "problem" individually.


Edited by snowlywhite, 15 February 2020 - 09:32 PM.


ThorgrimBrenadim #60 Posted 15 February 2020 - 09:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37111 battles
  • 839
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View Postsnowlywhite, on 15 February 2020 - 09:26 PM, said:

 

that's not how it works; eu gives a directive, member states have to put that directive into law.

 

anyway, the discussion is, as always when the topic comes in this forums, comical. WG can give you piss all and more or less nothing will happen. The reason why they don't is because it'd be a mega marketing fiasco. But legally, really...

 

ok, 5-10k nutties will start some action and maybe get a partial refund. Or probably a whole refund as I don't see why they'd bother fighting it. Rest probably will have better things to do with their lives...

 

money is the last problem. Problem is they can't anymore sell you this "nice, OP tank"(we have 10 CCs who say it's OP) and promise you they won't nerf it in the future. That's why they avoid it.

 

But eventually they'll have to start modifying premiums. This patch, if enacted, will be a disaster and they'll have to bite the bullet.

 

p.s. - in case anyone forgot there's no class action suite in EU. So... for the wannabe consumer fighters around, each of you would have to solve their "problem" individually.

WRONG! 

 

We have here in the UK the following that in all practicality are a class action lawsuit.

 

A court in the UK England can bring claims by multiple claimants together using case management powers.

We also have GLO's ( Group Litigation Orders )

There may be more but off the top of my head not committing.

 

EU yes they give a directive that member nations have to put into their laws so what do you actually think the word "mirror" means in the context I used it ?

It is that the law we put in place must be the same as the EU law/directive.

 

What would be comical if it was not so sad instead is people who are clueless of their rights commenting online in a way that try's to show/tell others they do not have rights that they do have. If people don't know don't comment, if you want to comment go find out first. But I know my rights and I have enforced them ( example EA ) and oh yes I WON ! not a court case but I got the resolution in part I wanted and also some free games. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users