Jump to content


WG should be held accountable for this!


  • Please log in to reply
163 replies to this topic

Ailok_Konem #1 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:08 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2909 battles
  • 45
  • [REDEG] REDEG
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011

In my opinion what Wargaming are doing with premium tanks that have been purchased with real money is illegal. I'm only talking about the people that spent real life on a certain tank and not about players who obtain it for free by playing.

 

This method fits perfectly something that is called "predatory monetization scheme".

 

For example, WG can make a tank slighlty overpowered or even more then just slightly, and then place it in Premium Shop for players to buy. Players spend millions on that specific item and then WG modify the item and nerf it. Players spent money they cannot recive back (or can they?), and WG are keeping millions.

This thing is illegal in most countries and in many other aspects not just online gaming. 

 

"... Such predatory monetization schemes were defined as “in-game purchasing systems that disguise or withhold the true long-term cost of the activity until players are already financially and psychologically committed” 

 

Many countries, especially in the European Union have laws against this kind of behaviour from gaming companies and you are protected by them. There is a very popular case of Valve in Australia... 

 

"Consumer protection issues related specifically to in-game purchases (i.e., microtransactions) have generally not been examined in the courts. However, in Australia, one particular high-profile consumer protection case involving online game software purchases was Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) vs Valve Corporation which was filed in 2014 and resolved in 2018. In its final ruling, the Federal Court found that the company Valve Corporation (Valve), through its online game distribution platform Steam and its Steam website, had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations to Australian consumers about the consumer guarantees under Australian consumer law. Although not specifically relating to micro-transactions (but still relevant to digital goods), the Court reached the important finding that Valve could be held liable for false or misleading representations to consumers. In the terms and conditions contained in its Steam subscriber agreement and refund policy: (1) consumers were not entitled to a refund for digitally downloaded games purchased from Valve in any circumstances; (2) Valve had excluded statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality; and (3) Valve had restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties of acceptable quality (ACCC, 2016). Valve was ordered to pay $3 million in penalties.

 

-

 

Bottom line is that this should be illegal under the consumerl law of your country and players who spent real life money for an item that is about to be changed after the purchase should be entitled to a refund. Because if not then this is nothing less then cheating. They sell items for real life money and after a while they modify the items without your possibility to get your money back. Completly illegal behaviour and i will not buy a single tank from WG anymore. 

 

WG refund policy specifies that an itrm can be refunded if it has not been "used". After the patch that modifies an item and has different specifications then what you paid for, should be a new item and be allowed to refund it. 

 

DO NOT ENCOURAGE and accept this kind of behaviour from any company and don't let yourself be manipulated like this. 

It will encourage them to release other OP tanks, sell them and then bring them back in line after 1 year. That specific item would have not had this kind of market success if it had been in line from start. 

 

 

 

 



DaniulSims #2 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:11 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11477 battles
  • 1,199
  • [ELC3K] ELC3K
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014
"I bought an OP premium and now I'm mad that something related to it is getting nerfed."

Grow up.

The stats of your tank isn't changing, WG can't be held accountable for anything.

Equipment 2.0 is on its way anyway - will you complain when that comes out aswell?

Edited by DaniulSims, 12 July 2020 - 11:11 AM.


Kdingo #3 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:11 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 33421 battles
  • 9,094
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011
A pretty lengthy way of saying "reeeeee don't nerf my spaghetti"

Even so its amusing how this turns some people into hobby hedge lawyers.

DaniulSims #4 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:14 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11477 battles
  • 1,199
  • [ELC3K] ELC3K
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

View PostKdingo, on 12 July 2020 - 12:11 PM, said:

A pretty lengthy way of saying "reeeeee don't nerf my spaghetti"

Even so its amusing how this turns some people into hobby hedge lawyers.

I wouldn't be surprised if these same people complained about OP premiums

 

 

Right up until the moment they bought it.



splash_time #5 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:15 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17450 battles
  • 2,330
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-20-2018

View PostKdingo, on 12 July 2020 - 01:11 PM, said:

A pretty lengthy way of saying "reeeeee don't nerf my spaghetti"

 

Although afaik, the spaghetti can't be nerfed. :hiding::trollface:



Ailok_Konem #6 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:16 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2909 battles
  • 45
  • [REDEG] REDEG
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011
No. I dont own the Progetto i only own the EBR. I really dont care about it beeing nerfed (i think its op) but i dont want WG to take advantage of players. And in my opinion they are. 

Pitulusu #7 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:18 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 10643 battles
  • 164
  • Member since:
    10-17-2017
where can i sign? i'm in!

DaniulSims #8 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:18 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11477 battles
  • 1,199
  • [ELC3K] ELC3K
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

View PostAilok_Konem, on 12 July 2020 - 12:16 PM, said:

No. I dont own the Progetto i only own the EBR. I really dont care about it beeing nerfed (i think its op) but i dont want WG to take advantage of players. And in my opinion they are. 

They're not. They are changing statistics that can't be proven in court in the case of the destroyed wheels getting changed - unlike the old nerf to TDs of not loosing camo after firing. 



Nishi_Kinuyo #9 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:26 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11290 battles
  • 7,590
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

Yes, good job.

Pretty sure that part of the law is in relation to microtransactions and "surprise mechanics".

Not things that are up for regular sale with a set price.



GalmTwo #10 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:28 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9662 battles
  • 328
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-28-2014
Dude, this was bound to happen at some point. WG realized their mistake and now are trying to remedy it.

Ailok_Konem #11 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:28 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2909 battles
  • 45
  • [REDEG] REDEG
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 12 July 2020 - 11:26 AM, said:

Yes, good job.

Pretty sure that part of the law is in relation to microtransactions and "surprise mechanics".

Not things that are up for regular sale with a set price.

Although not specifically relating to micro-transactions (but still relevant to digital goods)



Pitulusu #12 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:29 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 10643 battles
  • 164
  • Member since:
    10-17-2017
They should pay for they're mistakes... like everyone does.

Ailok_Konem #13 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:37 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2909 battles
  • 45
  • [REDEG] REDEG
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011
I completly agree. They made a mistake and now they are fixing it. And ita ok. But why are players the ones paying for their mistakes? And this could very easily turn into a trend.
They are about to release a new polish premium tier 8 right? Make it a bit overpowered, sell 100.000 tanks without the posibility of refund and then in 1 year nerf it.
If it was properly done from day 1 they would have sold only 10.000 tanks maybe?
This is what im trying to highlight here.


CmdRatScabies #14 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:46 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 39085 battles
  • 6,566
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostDaniulSims, on 12 July 2020 - 11:18 AM, said:

They're not. They are changing statistics that can't be proven in court in the case of the destroyed wheels getting changed - unlike the old nerf to TDs of not loosing camo after firing. 

Where did you study consumer law?

10:48 Added after 1 minute

View PostGalmTwo, on 12 July 2020 - 11:28 AM, said:

Dude, this was bound to happen at some point. WG realized their mistake and now are trying to remedy it.

They made a stupid mistake, if they want to fix it it will cost them.



Gkirmathal #15 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:49 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8692 battles
  • 1,927
  • [2VTD] 2VTD
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

WG made the single (greedy) mistake of selling premium content for real currency. That set them on a track on which it would be troublesome to readjust such content, because it was payed for with real currencies.

 

They should've from day one, sold all premium content for gold only. So a consumer should have had to buy a set amount of in-game gold and with that make the purchase (in the portal or in-hame) of the premium content they wanted to have.

That approach of selling premium would have circumvented the 'real currency issue' that is tight to consumer rights and products.

 

Wargaming can still make this change though, BUT they have to live with the issue of having sold content for real currency and the probability of having to partially reimburse some if it.

In the end they will IMO come out that a healthier company that has more flexibility to adjust premium content.



CmdRatScabies #16 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:55 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 39085 battles
  • 6,566
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostGkirmathal, on 12 July 2020 - 11:49 AM, said:

They should've from day one, sold all premium content for gold only. So a consumer should have had to buy a set amount of in-game gold and with that make the purchase (in the portal or in-hame) of the premium content they wanted to have.

That approach of selling premium would have circumvented the 'real currency issue' that is tight to consumer rights and products.

Are you basing opinion that on legal knowledge?  Seems unlikely that purchase for gold would have circumvented the law given that gold is sold almost exclusively for cash.  Even if it enabled them to refund in gold it would still hit their bottom line as it would reduce sale of gold.



Kdingo #17 Posted 12 July 2020 - 11:57 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 33421 battles
  • 9,094
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

View PostAilok_Konem, on 12 July 2020 - 11:37 AM, said:

But why are players the ones paying for their mistakes? 

 

The only ones "paying" for their mistakes are the ones that had no problems to exploit said mistakes for personal profit.

Even so i am sure there will be a lot pretending that they didn't do it/didn't know.. yada yada.

 

Is it bad that wg releases broken stuff and fixes this later? yes.

Yet people buy into it anyways and play victim afterwards.

No one can be that naive or dense.

 

You are right that people should not support this kind of development, but as time has shown they do it and will continue to do so, while ranting about it.

 

Its like a steam group if people that boycotted a certain call of duty and a few days/weeks later more then half the people in said group could be seen playing the game they "boycott".

You can't blame companies to milk a market full of hypocrite consumer drones.



Ailok_Konem #18 Posted 12 July 2020 - 12:14 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2909 battles
  • 45
  • [REDEG] REDEG
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011

View PostKdingo, on 12 July 2020 - 11:57 AM, said:

 

The only ones "paying" for their mistakes are the ones that had no problems to exploit said mistakes for personal profit.

Even so i am sure there will be a lot pretending that they didn't do it/didn't know.. yada yada.

 

Is it bad that wg releases broken stuff and fixes this later? yes.

Yet people buy into it anyways and play victim afterwards.

No one can be that naive or dense.

 

You are right that people should not support this kind of development, but as time has shown they do it and will continue to do so, while ranting about it.

 

Its like a steam group if people that boycotted a certain call of duty and a few days/weeks later more then half the people in said group could be seen playing the game they "boycott".

You can't blame companies to milk a market full of hypocrite consumer drones.

How can you see what the player does as an exploit and not what the company does? 



Dramya #19 Posted 12 July 2020 - 12:16 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18136 battles
  • 671
  • [_PZF_] _PZF_
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014
I think the majority of the player base would be entirely OK with a rework of some premium vehicles, as long as its a reasonable balancing act across the whole lineup of premium and techtree tanks. We all know there are balancing issues and not being able to touch premiums really hurts any balancing measures taken.

I do understand the reluctance of people for a rework on tanks that are bought with money, but people should realise they bought a tank which performs better then it should. And they do realize it, thats why a lot of people bought it in the first place.

Gkirmathal #20 Posted 12 July 2020 - 12:18 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8692 battles
  • 1,927
  • [2VTD] 2VTD
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 12 July 2020 - 10:55 AM, said:

Are you basing opinion that on legal knowledge?  Seems unlikely that purchase for gold would have circumvented the law given that gold is sold almost exclusively for cash.  Even if it enabled them to refund in gold it would still hit their bottom line as it would reduce sale of gold.

 

I've work at legal publisher, the main one of my government, a few years back. So I had the opportunity to inquire a colleague or two about EU consumer rights (who had legal background).

Also here on the forums the EU consumer rights (and documents have been linked) have been discussed quite a couple of times (you might remember those discussions as well).

 

What I can recollect (maybe legislation is changed again, dunnow, I no longer work there), they mention your EU consumers rights (buyers protection) in regards to purchases of digital good/content, within the EMU (EU monetary union), for real currency.

 

Your own countries legislation supersedes these, if they wish to do so, if I remember correctly. You can see this with EU gambling legislation vs loot boxes, Belgian legislation banned lootboxes and local Belgium legislation superseded EU legislation (that permits them) thus lootboxes became banned in Belgium.

 

So therefor (and to be clear it is not my idea, an other forumite opted it some weeks ago), it is better to sell premium goods not directly for real currency but a virtual in-game currency. Your purchase of premium content is detached from the purchase of digital goods (gold in WoT instance).

Then WG could, in theory, do whatever balancing they want to do on premium in-game content, because it is detached from any direct real currency purchase. But they cannot ever devalue the monetary purchase (Euro or $) value of gold, cause that would be attached buyers protection of digital good.


Edited by Gkirmathal, 12 July 2020 - 12:34 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users