I reached out to EA support, and they directed me to share with y'all

Replies

  • EmTrii
    3 posts Member
    edited October 2019
    What you are all missing is that this is the third time that this event happened and the second time as a rerun.

    If this isn’t how it worked the first rerun, then that means that CG intentionally changed the code to allow folks to get shards. That means that there is no way it’s a bug. It was done on purpose!!

    It only became a bug once people who spent money and GET to already get Malak to 7* complained. I 100% agree with the OP that they need to accept responsibility and keep their hands off this intentional roll out of shards.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    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.

    So in law, as you appear to realize, precedent isn’t always a crystal clear repeat of prior circumstances. The GameStop situation helps us to see that in spite of a TOS and even a bulleted disclosure that property rights attached to intellectual property that was not directly purchased. This shows us that in the instant case, we have a TOS that says that we have no ownership of the game or its contents, but we do in fact have property rights. The value in the GameStop case far exceeded the $15. That’s because GameStop, like CG, said the in game content has no monetary value. So that means the arbitrator has to figure out what it would take to get that content. I hope that shows you that what we’re talking about is 150 Malak shards. Imagine the FMV the arbitrator would determine in coming by those.
  • Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    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.

    Even if it was somehow theft, there would not be a way to put monetary value on Malak shards. You cannot directly purchase them, only earn them through the event or GET.
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out the Underworld Alliance on Discord:https://discord.gg/wvrYb4Q
  • TVF
    36527 posts Member
    @Pfizzy.

    "The forums aren't the ideal place for legal discussions and posts including legal chat will be removed."

    @Kyno
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Ultra
    11454 posts Moderator
    Guys I'm a software developer, let me educate y'all how easy it is to fix this mistake but don't expect me to do anything about it!
  • Pfizzy wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Hahahaha!

    Please sue them. And let us know how it goes.
    I don’t make legal threats. Sorry.

    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Also. My firm is currently reviewing the TOS and that clause is not enforceable.

    🤔
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out the Underworld Alliance on Discord:https://discord.gg/wvrYb4Q
  • Pfizzy wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Hahahaha!

    Please sue them. And let us know how it goes.
    I don’t make legal threats. Sorry.

    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Also. My firm is currently reviewing the TOS and that clause is not enforceable.

    🤔

    Stating my opinion that a clause stating I have no ownerships rights is not enforceable is not a threat. My firm is my firm, I can have them do what I want as far as review and research is involved.

  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    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.

    So in law, as you appear to realize, precedent isn’t always a crystal clear repeat of prior circumstances. The GameStop situation helps us to see that in spite of a TOS and even a bulleted disclosure that property rights attached to intellectual property that was not directly purchased. This shows us that in the instant case, we have a TOS that says that we have no ownership of the game or its contents, but we do in fact have property rights. The value in the GameStop case far exceeded the $15. That’s because GameStop, like CG, said the in game content has no monetary value. So that means the arbitrator has to figure out what it would take to get that content. I hope that shows you that what we’re talking about is 150 Malak shards. Imagine the FMV the arbitrator would determine in coming by those.

    In your example there is a price of the item in the transaction which is what would allow this path to be followed. This is an item that is earned through an in game activity and not a purchase. That would be a major distinction between these 2 cases, wouldn't it?

    There are games that institute "game balance" changes, which would be on the same lines as this, and that is not considered theft. Even though what is taken away is never given back, at least not in its original state.

    In the rough definition of theft, there are terms like "permanent" and "without consent", the ToS provides that consent and this is not permanent as we are being given the chance to gain them back (that's a thin one, but its there).

    I appreciate the conversation about this topic, feel free to not respond at any time, this is not my field and it is yours.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    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.

    So in law, as you appear to realize, precedent isn’t always a crystal clear repeat of prior circumstances. The GameStop situation helps us to see that in spite of a TOS and even a bulleted disclosure that property rights attached to intellectual property that was not directly purchased. This shows us that in the instant case, we have a TOS that says that we have no ownership of the game or its contents, but we do in fact have property rights. The value in the GameStop case far exceeded the $15. That’s because GameStop, like CG, said the in game content has no monetary value. So that means the arbitrator has to figure out what it would take to get that content. I hope that shows you that what we’re talking about is 150 Malak shards. Imagine the FMV the arbitrator would determine in coming by those.

    In your example there is a price of the item in the transaction which is what would allow this path to be followed. This is an item that is earned through an in game activity and not a purchase. That would be a major distinction between these 2 cases, wouldn't it?

    There are games that institute "game balance" changes, which would be on the same lines as this, and that is not considered theft. Even though what is taken away is never given back, at least not in its original state.

    In the rough definition of theft, there are terms like "permanent" and "without consent", the ToS provides that consent and this is not permanent as we are being given the chance to gain them back (that's a thin one, but its there).

    I appreciate the conversation about this topic, feel free to not respond at any time, this is not my field and it is yours.

    You’re right it’s a solid distinction and the settlement in GameStop is only persuasive authority (they settled so it’s not a recorded case). The question though is whether “play for or pay for” content has value in which property rights attach. I think the GameStop case established that kind of content does have value and the removal of the ownership created a right of action.

    In the case of balance changes I think the argument isn’t that you’re taking property away, but you are changing its value. The game-makers need to have the ability to manipulate the mechanisms of the game and so as long as they aren’t doing so for the purpose of changing the value of the property then I don’t think they have the intent necessary to be guilty of theft or even to create a right of action.

    But alternatively, if say CG got really mad at me and knew I spent a lot on Ewoks (I am ashamed to say I did). And they purposefully made Ewoks weaker to harm me, then I think that is actionable.
  • This accident could have been a miracle CG needed to heal the game. Their mistake brought more joy and optimism to the game then their 5 years plan bluff.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    wogitalia wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    wogitalia wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    wogitalia wrote: »
    Damodamo wrote: »
    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.

    When only one reward is listed and tgere is no range, it is pretty obvious what the rewards are. You're trying hard to defend these crooks but your stretching logic quite a bit with this one.

    And yes, crooks is a correct description of cg if they go through with this crap of a plan.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    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.

    So in law, as you appear to realize, precedent isn’t always a crystal clear repeat of prior circumstances. The GameStop situation helps us to see that in spite of a TOS and even a bulleted disclosure that property rights attached to intellectual property that was not directly purchased. This shows us that in the instant case, we have a TOS that says that we have no ownership of the game or its contents, but we do in fact have property rights. The value in the GameStop case far exceeded the $15. That’s because GameStop, like CG, said the in game content has no monetary value. So that means the arbitrator has to figure out what it would take to get that content. I hope that shows you that what we’re talking about is 150 Malak shards. Imagine the FMV the arbitrator would determine in coming by those.

    In your example there is a price of the item in the transaction which is what would allow this path to be followed. This is an item that is earned through an in game activity and not a purchase. That would be a major distinction between these 2 cases, wouldn't it?

    There are games that institute "game balance" changes, which would be on the same lines as this, and that is not considered theft. Even though what is taken away is never given back, at least not in its original state.

    In the rough definition of theft, there are terms like "permanent" and "without consent", the ToS provides that consent and this is not permanent as we are being given the chance to gain them back (that's a thin one, but its there).

    I appreciate the conversation about this topic, feel free to not respond at any time, this is not my field and it is yours.

    You’re right it’s a solid distinction and the settlement in GameStop is only persuasive authority (they settled so it’s not a recorded case). The question though is whether “play for or pay for” content has value in which property rights attach. I think the GameStop case established that kind of content does have value and the removal of the ownership created a right of action.

    In the case of balance changes I think the argument isn’t that you’re taking property away, but you are changing its value. The game-makers need to have the ability to manipulate the mechanisms of the game and so as long as they aren’t doing so for the purpose of changing the value of the property then I don’t think they have the intent necessary to be guilty of theft or even to create a right of action.

    But alternatively, if say CG got really mad at me and knew I spent a lot on Ewoks (I am ashamed to say I did). And they purposefully made Ewoks weaker to harm me, then I think that is actionable.

    Thanks for the conversation, as TVF pointed out we should probably end it here.
  • Lanbo
    128 posts Member
    It's very simple. If you are not happy with the resolution, request a refund from google or apple or file a chargeback for what you spent to gear up Malak. You made a purchase based on a set of circumstances. They changed those circumstances and therefore changed your purchase. When they bleed a few million bucks from refunds and chargebacks they'll see how badly they screwed the pooch on this one.
  • Lanbo
    128 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    wogitalia wrote: »
    Damodamo wrote: »
    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??

    Sometimes these events let you play multiple times (like marquee events) and only give rewards on the first completion. Being as this is the ONLY epic confrontation to run more than once and considering many people may not have even been able to attempt it the first time, it is perfectly logical for someone to think this event gives shards each time or even that they changed it to do so this time.

    You're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but a good moderator has the ability to look at things from multiple sides. You almost always seem fixated on CG being able to walk on water and can't even fathom anything else. Pull the wool off your eyes and start looking at things from other perspectives.
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    mesa176750 wrote: »
    Another problem I have is that they are screwing over people that didn't happen to have the 7* malak by denying them the 2,250 shard shop currency. I have a 7* malak, and got the shard shop currency. I'm happy for myself. My friend was 30 shards short of 7* and will lose out on the 2,250 shard shop currency. That's kind of a **** move for him, because his only crime was not hoarding the GET like I did. I feel that everyone should get the 2,250 shard shop currency if you had malak unlocked prior to this event.

    CG, please just give people their malak shards and everyone will be happy.

    Not everyone will happy if they let the malak shards stay... anyone who got him the hard way will be PIST and should be.

    As far as the shard currency goes, it's really so minuscule, it's not game changing for anyone.

    You’re right but it’s the principle, otherwise take the moral high ground and ask them not to give you the 2250 free currency?
  • gflegui wrote: »
    Everyone Who can read knew this was a bug. if You took advantage. Be grateful you were Not punished for exploit it.

    CG has never punished people of rewards earned for bugs if they did they need to adjust raid rewards gac rewards anyone who used any bug ever.
  • evoluza wrote: »
    wogitalia wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    wogitalia wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    wogitalia wrote: »
    Damodamo wrote: »
    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.

    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..

    That is false if it’s clearly marked at a lower price they have to give it to you for that price. It is their fault they have to honor it.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    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.

    Actually because of the in game economy there is a clear exchange rate for the shards earned in the event to another in game currency (get) which can purchase toons and shards available for in game premium currency (crystal) which can be bought for real world money. So the conversion can be done to show an actual monetary worth therefore showing an actual market value for the time spent.
  • Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    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.

    Even if it was somehow theft, there would not be a way to put monetary value on Malak shards. You cannot directly purchase them, only earn them through the event or GET.

    Incorrect the conversion can be done.
  • evoluza wrote: »
    Ooooh. You what free stuff others grinded and payed for. Absolutely reasonable for you to assume cg should screw all the first event finishers and spread free shards later. That's also in line with any progression system in every grindy mobilegame.
    I don't know what rided cg there for that REALLY Bad change.
    Not focused players should be able to get stuff way cheaper then focused players.

    I don't understand this mentality. They are over 6 months behind the meta so just let them have it. I'd be perfectly happy of after 3 times I got to replay the event and got 150 shards for ssc. And it'd be a welcome change to give players a bit of a slingshot mechanic.
  • CCyrilS
    6732 posts Member
    edited October 2019
    Mercury88 wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »

    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.

    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

    That's the usual practice, and good customer service. However i have seen misprints in ads many times that were not honored, and is legal to do so.
    Post edited by CCyrilS on
  • Chewy88 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »
    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.

    Actually because of the in game economy there is a clear exchange rate for the shards earned in the event to another in game currency (get) which can purchase toons and shards available for in game premium currency (crystal) which can be bought for real world money. So the conversion can be done to show an actual monetary worth therefore showing an actual market value for the time spent.

    Yep if you use malak shards to get to stun guns to crystals to $, it comes to 33.6k in crystals. That's about 2 vaults or about $200.

    Given that people routinely pay that much or more to finish characters it seems like a reasonable estimate. But if you use other gear it probably comes out similarly and certainly more than the $15 of value mentioned in the case above.

    So for this to not be theft, the replacement rewards needs to at least equal the amount they are taking away.
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    Mercury88 wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »

    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.

    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

    That's the usual practice, and good customer service. However i have seen misprints in ads many times that were not honored, and is legal to do so. [/quote]

    So people that spend hundreds of $ on this game shouldn't expect decent customer service. I think it depends on the area you live in on whether it's legal. State laws can vary a lot. But regardless, we should demand better than this.
  • CCyrilS
    6732 posts Member
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Mercury88 wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »

    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.

    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
    That's the usual practice, and good customer service. However i have seen misprints in ads many times that were not honored, and is legal to do so.

    So people that spend hundreds of $ on this game shouldn't expect decent customer service. I think it depends on the area you live in on whether it's legal. State laws can vary a lot. But regardless, we should demand better than this.

    No, I wasn't commenting on customer service. Only the "false advertising" accusation.
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Mercury88 wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Pfizzy wrote: »

    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.

    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
    That's the usual practice, and good customer service. However i have seen misprints in ads many times that were not honored, and is legal to do so.

    So people that spend hundreds of $ on this game shouldn't expect decent customer service. I think it depends on the area you live in on whether it's legal. State laws can vary a lot. But regardless, we should demand better than this.

    No, I wasn't commenting on customer service. Only the "false advertising" accusation.

    Ok but the false advertising accusations can be true depending on your individual state laws. So your point doesn't dispute that all that well either. Considering cg has players around the world, it would be wise of them to tread carefully.

    I'm sure there is some localities tgat have strict enough laws that could view this as actionable.
  • mrebey27
    17 posts Member
    edited October 2019
    People who pay (including myself occasionally) know you’re paying to get early access/availability to a toon. People who paid to get Malak to 7 stars early enjoyed months of free reign at the top of their Arena shards. People who paid for Malak are the ones who should stop whining because as the famous saying goes “a fool and his money is soon departed”.
  • ssj4tim
    135 posts Member
    edited October 2019
    Kyno wrote: »
    wogitalia wrote: »
    Damodamo wrote: »
    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??

    This is a poor poor excuse and frankly you guys should stop trying to hide behind this "first time reward" technicality, because technically it could be misconstrued still. It did not say "first time ever" reward, just first time which could refer to the first time you do it during this round of the event. There was no in depth clarification on it, people pointed out that it listed that before the event even went live and CG didn't do a dang thing to clarify it. Instead they waited until after people spent money. That is very shady business. Yes you can hide behind "oh it totally said first time, I don't know WHY you guys would think it meant you could do it again, not like this was a repeat event that has come back before with no problem, this is totally something that was accidental and we had no way to avoid.". Very shady business practice, almost like crooks. I'm just glad I'm not one of the poor people that spent money, honestly they should be entitled to full refunds on any money spent since the event was put in the event section of the game and people saw the rewards listed.
Sign In or Register to comment.