Everyone Who can read knew this was a bug. if You took advantage. Be grateful you were Not punished for exploit it.
Many people on the forums, reddit, discord servers thought that it was an intentional thing done by CG as either a make good, or just as an evolution of that style of event. Good luck to them punishing people for their own mistakes.
And many other read that shards are aware for the first time you do it... so... if you do it a second o third time and gives you shards something went wrong since the description of the event is cristal clear.
May be if you didn’t read it you may fool yourself.
That’s completely inaccurate. During the farm boy flash events they gave us scavenger shards repeatedly, even though it said “first time” there as well. You’re only saying it’s different now because you aren’t thinking objectively. No one cheated to get these shards. It wasn’t an exploit.
You are really comparing scavenger shards with Malak shards... rest my case...
Basically everything you say is partly wrong.
It was on for 10h because they where not at work.
The event did say first time.
At Walmart they don't let you purchase stuff that isn't listed cheaper in there system.
The bug is an open window at Walmart and you taking stuff and jumping out..
Actually. If Wal-Mart publishes an advertisement listing it at a price. They have to honor that price. Otherwise they are liable for false advertisement actions.
[/quote]
Basically everything you say is partly wrong.
It was on for 10h because they where not at work.
The event did say first time.
At Walmart they don't let you purchase stuff that isn't listed cheaper in there system.
The bug is an open window at Walmart and you taking stuff and jumping out..
Actually. If Wal-Mart publishes an advertisement listing it at a price. They have to honor that price. Otherwise they are liable for false advertisement actions.
Common misconception, but not true.[/quote]
Actually it is true. I have won that case in court for clients twice.
Dude, thank you. You are upset and should be, but you told your story with some nicely sprinkled humor.
You are a perfect example why people who already had a 7 star malak should have received 57000 GET. All players who were able to 7 star him should also be compensated for the shards they purchased with GET.
Gear grind alleviated and most of us would have 7 star malak so our focus could turn to hoarding for GAS.
Final note, I am one of the ones who already had 7 star Malak.
This is what I believe too, and the best way to solve this. Can't think of another fair way to do it.
It also will alleviate the hugely poor decision to release General Skywalker the same way. At least when Malak arrived he was still useful at 5*, but with Anakin he sucks at 5* and even with all 4 zetas. Gear 13 also did not exist when Malak was released so gear 11 wasn't as much of a weakness as it is now.
There does seem to be an upsurge of long time players quitting lately because of the way the community is being treated so this would be a good way to get things going in the right direction again.
I took advantage of the bug, I asked about a week ago (when the event popped up in the in game tab) why is it listing shards as a reward and why is it even popping up? I unlocked him second time around, so wasn’t sure if it was meant to or not. Kudos to cg for quality control again!
Anyone who used the ‘bug’ is going to lose the 7* malak, fair enough, no one is actually further behind than they were, so no harm no foul there..
my issue is what else are they going to break when they do the roll back? How many posts are there going to be where ea support tell you to post in the forum as they ‘can’t’ help... funny how cg break something and can roll back when they want to do it, but if something else goes wrong they can’t do anything..
Other than people using their valuable time to do it. There is no way I do the event again without the shard shop reward being there, period. Maybe everyone should invoice their time to CG because I can tell you that my time is worth a lot more than 250 crystals and it's time that they wasted with their mistake by pulling an illegal bait and switch. You advertise one thing, for a week no less, and then when people actually get that thing you've advertised you go, oh wait no, that's not what we meant, here's some peanuts instead...
Dog act.
Can you please explain the bait and switch?
Are you referring to the rewards that stated "first time rewards" as they were advertised??
Advertising the rewards for the best part of a week (when the event was listed), then continuing to advertise them for another 10 hours without any comment regarding it is clear advertisement of what the rewards would be for completing the event this time.
It's really that simple. To then remove those rewards and offer a far lesser reward is pretty much the textbook definition of what a bait and switch is.
Luckily for myself all I invested was time but I still value my time and to be jerked around is a dog move by CG. If they'd made a comment during the advertisement or even initially upon it opening, fair enough, but they had 10 hours with no comment and plenty of comments previously that supported this as a legitimate (and good) action by them. I'm sure there are plenty of people who spent actual money on this false advertisement as well, those guys have got screwed over even harder.
You can try and spin it however you want but the simple fact is that for 10 hours they advertised this as the reward, paid it out as the reward and everything was functioning as could be reasonably expected and now they are going to take back what was given and offer something vastly inferior in its place.
You mean the rewards that were listed as "first time only", which is what they are, and they are making changes to ensure they follow what was advertised.... that's not a bait and switch in the slightest.
There are many descriptors that can be used for this situation, that is not one of them.
Well they've pulled it now so I can't see it to confirm one way or the other but the shards were listed under the "Possible rewards" for the week the event was advertised and then there was no "first time only" on the rewards tab when checking to confirm that those possible rewards were in fact being offered, just the shards sitting there clear as day.
That there was no comment for 10 hours that it wasn't working as intended is further conflicting to this "bug" 180 flip they've pulled. Simple fact is they had the reward advertised for 10 hours, some people bought and paid for it in that time and to then go and try and yank it back is a dog act. If Walmart puts up a sign and a bunch of people buy the product, they don't go chasing your house down and steal it back from you. People will accept this because it's digital theft and that seems to be alright for many but the simple fact is they advertised a reward, failed for 10 hours to even mention there was an alleged error and people in good faith dedicated their time and resources into achieving that reward.
Simple fact is that they said in the game that the reward would be 75 shards for each side and they did so for 10 hours after showing the shards in general for a week, then when people earned those rewards they want to take it all back and give you diddly squat in exchange, not even a pittance of what people would have spent to subsequently gear him after unlocking.
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.[/quote]
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.
Correct. Not a bait and switch. Theft.
Incorrect.
Please enlighten me why your opinion outweighs my bar license?
The shards were earned/obtained by breaking no rules. CG EA is choosing to take them back now. That is theft.
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.
Correct. Not a bait and switch. Theft.
Incorrect.
Please enlighten me why your opinion outweighs my bar license?
The shards were earned/obtained by breaking no rules. CG EA is choosing to take them back now. That is theft.
It's not my opinion, it is a fact based on the ToS of the game. As stated in the ToS we do not have ownership.
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.
Correct. Not a bait and switch. Theft.
Incorrect.
Please enlighten me why your opinion outweighs my bar license?
The shards were earned/obtained by breaking no rules. CG EA is choosing to take them back now. That is theft.
It's not my opinion, it is a fact based on the ToS of the game. As stated in the ToS we do not have ownership.
Property rights attach regardless of TOS. While they are not alienable property, it is still property that has rights afforded. You can not deny those rights in a simple license agreement.
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.
Correct. Not a bait and switch. Theft.
Incorrect.
Please enlighten me why your opinion outweighs my bar license?
The shards were earned/obtained by breaking no rules. CG EA is choosing to take them back now. That is theft.
It's not my opinion, it is a fact based on the ToS of the game. As stated in the ToS we do not have ownership.
Property rights attach regardless of TOS. While they are not alienable property, it is still property that has rights afforded. You can not deny those rights in a simple license agreement.
Hahahaha! Get ‘em! I already have a couple of refunds processing. I have to call the number for the gear purchases apparently. But the crystal purchases made to buy gear for Malak are currently being refunded.
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.
Correct. Not a bait and switch. Theft.
Incorrect.
Please enlighten me why your opinion outweighs my bar license?
The shards were earned/obtained by breaking no rules. CG EA is choosing to take them back now. That is theft.
It's not my opinion, it is a fact based on the ToS of the game. As stated in the ToS we do not have ownership.
Property rights attach regardless of TOS. While they are not alienable property, it is still property that has rights afforded. You can not deny those rights in a simple license agreement.
Do you have a precedent?
In the current state when looking at ToS and end user agreements for virtual good being sold/purchased in games the companies are protected by these agreements. Most of the legal debates around these involve the purchase and sale of these vitural items in a virtual landscape. There is no such market in this game and these items are earned through an in game event.
Basically everything you say is partly wrong.
It was on for 10h because they where not at work.
The event did say first time.
At Walmart they don't let you purchase stuff that isn't listed cheaper in there system.
The bug is an open window at Walmart and you taking stuff and jumping out..
Actually. If Wal-Mart publishes an advertisement listing it at a price. They have to honor that price. Otherwise they are liable for false advertisement actions.
Common misconception, but not true.[/quote]
Actually 100% true. Coming from a former wal-mart employee, if something was listed in store at a lower price than it scans at register, they will have an employee confirm that it is listed at the price the person told and if so they will give it at that price. They'll remove the wrong price immediately but that person does get it at the reduced price
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.
Correct. Not a bait and switch. Theft.
Incorrect.
Please enlighten me why your opinion outweighs my bar license?
The shards were earned/obtained by breaking no rules. CG EA is choosing to take them back now. That is theft.
It's not my opinion, it is a fact based on the ToS of the game. As stated in the ToS we do not have ownership.
Property rights attach regardless of TOS. While they are not alienable property, it is still property that has rights afforded. You can not deny those rights in a simple license agreement.
Do you have a precedent?
In the current state when looking at ToS and end user agreements for virtual good being sold/purchased in games the companies are protected by these agreements. Most of the legal debates around these involve the purchase and sale of these vitural items in a virtual landscape. There is no such market in this game and these items are earned through an in game event.
Sure. In 2012 GameStop offered $15 in downloadable content as incentive for purchasing used games. The case settled and set the precedent that although the downloadable content was barred ownership per the terms of service and it also stated it had no monetary value, the arrangement provided a quid pro quo exchange of goods and services for time and a fee.
When those goods and services were later retracted, GameStop was forced to pay equivalent value for what someone would have paid for them (in legal terms we call that fair market value).
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.
Correct. Not a bait and switch. Theft.
Incorrect.
Please enlighten me why your opinion outweighs my bar license?
The shards were earned/obtained by breaking no rules. CG EA is choosing to take them back now. That is theft.
It's not my opinion, it is a fact based on the ToS of the game. As stated in the ToS we do not have ownership.
Property rights attach regardless of TOS. While they are not alienable property, it is still property that has rights afforded. You can not deny those rights in a simple license agreement.
Do you have a precedent?
In the current state when looking at ToS and end user agreements for virtual good being sold/purchased in games the companies are protected by these agreements. Most of the legal debates around these involve the purchase and sale of these vitural items in a virtual landscape. There is no such market in this game and these items are earned through an in game event.
Sure. In 2012 GameStop offered $15 in downloadable content as incentive for purchasing used games. The case settled and set the precedent that although the downloadable content was barred ownership per the terms of service and it also stated it had no monetary value, the arrangement provided a quid pro quo exchange of goods and services for time and a fee.
When those goods and services were later retracted, GameStop was forced to pay equivalent value for what someone would have paid for them (in legal terms we call that fair market value).
I'm not sure how that applies to in game materials being given out as part of an event being deemed property and owned by the player, despite a legal agreement saying they are not.
In your example there is a connection to a value and market, that doesnt exists for the materials here.
I am not trying to argue my point, just out of pure interest on my part. This has been a very interesting time for video game law, and related areas.
What’s your point? I have Malak 7*. I also have Gen Skywalker 5*. I’m not trying to get anything out of this. I’m trying to inform people, especially EA, what the facts are. Because if they screw this up we could lose a game that I enjoy.
Replies
You are really comparing scavenger shards with Malak shards... rest my case...
Actually. If Wal-Mart publishes an advertisement listing it at a price. They have to honor that price. Otherwise they are liable for false advertisement actions.
[/quote]
Common misconception, but not true.
Common misconception, but not true.[/quote]
Actually it is true. I have won that case in court for clients twice.
This is what I believe too, and the best way to solve this. Can't think of another fair way to do it.
It also will alleviate the hugely poor decision to release General Skywalker the same way. At least when Malak arrived he was still useful at 5*, but with Anakin he sucks at 5* and even with all 4 zetas. Gear 13 also did not exist when Malak was released so gear 11 wasn't as much of a weakness as it is now.
There does seem to be an upsurge of long time players quitting lately because of the way the community is being treated so this would be a good way to get things going in the right direction again.
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.
Apparently CG didn't considering how many days the event was in preview and then another almost half a day of silence after the event started.
Possible rewards are as they stated "possible". In the active event they were listed as "first time". So in both cases it is still not a bait and switch.[/quote]
Correct. Not a bait and switch. Theft.
Incorrect.
Please enlighten me why your opinion outweighs my bar license?
The shards were earned/obtained by breaking no rules. CG EA is choosing to take them back now. That is theft.
It's not my opinion, it is a fact based on the ToS of the game. As stated in the ToS we do not have ownership.
Property rights attach regardless of TOS. While they are not alienable property, it is still property that has rights afforded. You can not deny those rights in a simple license agreement.
Hahahaha! Get ‘em! I already have a couple of refunds processing. I have to call the number for the gear purchases apparently. But the crystal purchases made to buy gear for Malak are currently being refunded.
Do you have a precedent?
In the current state when looking at ToS and end user agreements for virtual good being sold/purchased in games the companies are protected by these agreements. Most of the legal debates around these involve the purchase and sale of these vitural items in a virtual landscape. There is no such market in this game and these items are earned through an in game event.
Common misconception, but not true.[/quote]
Actually 100% true. Coming from a former wal-mart employee, if something was listed in store at a lower price than it scans at register, they will have an employee confirm that it is listed at the price the person told and if so they will give it at that price. They'll remove the wrong price immediately but that person does get it at the reduced price
Sure. In 2012 GameStop offered $15 in downloadable content as incentive for purchasing used games. The case settled and set the precedent that although the downloadable content was barred ownership per the terms of service and it also stated it had no monetary value, the arrangement provided a quid pro quo exchange of goods and services for time and a fee.
When those goods and services were later retracted, GameStop was forced to pay equivalent value for what someone would have paid for them (in legal terms we call that fair market value).
Please sue them. And let us know how it goes.
Also, I wouldn’t be suing them. Theft is a crime. Suing someone refers to seeking remuneration in civil court.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I'm not sure how that applies to in game materials being given out as part of an event being deemed property and owned by the player, despite a legal agreement saying they are not.
In your example there is a connection to a value and market, that doesnt exists for the materials here.
I am not trying to argue my point, just out of pure interest on my part. This has been a very interesting time for video game law, and related areas.
What’s your point? I have Malak 7*. I also have Gen Skywalker 5*. I’m not trying to get anything out of this. I’m trying to inform people, especially EA, what the facts are. Because if they screw this up we could lose a game that I enjoy.