Regarding Heroine Bundle Purchases

Replies

  • well said
  • Geddre
    224 posts Member
    edited December 2015
    Pokebreaker - you and those like you need to understand something. Agreeing to "Terms of Service" is not the 100% shutdown you seem to think it is. Let's take this to extremes... Say they decided to change every one of the current characters to have abilities equal to Teebo and Night sister Acolyte. Then they released all new characters that actually do something, but they're pay only. Do you honestly believe they'd be able to hide behind TOS? Nope. Enforceability of something like that is entirely dependent on the userbases level of acceptance.

    In this case they pushed to far. Tons of people are rightfully getting their money back and EA is feeling it. I don't give a flying leap what I agree to... if I buy a super powerful game item and they change it to be garbage, I'm not bound by the TOS. This not the same as buying gems and using them on a character that ended up getting worse. This is actually taking away the item you bought and replacing it with something else that has the same name. That's not legal no matter what the TOS says.
  • Keaven wrote: »
    .
    .
    .
    For example, when purchasing a product include acknowledgment prompt with information stating:

    Items purchased are subject to changes which may be deemed suitable for balancing gameplay experience. This will not occur prior to 1 month from purchase.

    If something like that were applied, most importantly the time frame, it would help avoid this issue in the future.
    .
    .
    .

    a proper team of software testers, i.e. ISTQB certified specialists would prevent this in the future...
  • It doesn't matter how many times you rant the same thing over and over about the Term of Service agreement. Southpark is a comedy show, it doesn't quite work that way. Enjoy the game and be glad someone else is paying for it so you don't have to!

  • The steak analogy isn't the best, but still applicable.
    Even when signing, agreeing to a contract, there are still legal remedies when good faith and reasonableness are violated or if negligence or malfeasance applies. Otherwise, any scam can be perpetrated by simply getting one to sign a contract.
    I don't believe this was a scam. But there is a legitimate complaint here given the circumstances and timing. EA/CG are seeking a remedy, and it's certainly a reassuring sign toward demonstrating good faith.
    "That is why you fail."
  • Yeah, a better analogy would be leasing a car and a month later the dealership came to your house in the middle of the night and replaced the car you leased with a cheaper car model. No Lease Agreement would save the car dealership from the lessee.
  • Vampire_X wrote: »
    Terms of service keeps being thrown out here but your not smart marks (wrestling term for knowing the gimmicks)

    Terms decide how your allowed to access content, not that they can not be legally liable and in fact if you agree to pay a million dollars in qurora tos as a legal example it's not binding in federal court because terms only apply to access not liability

    So stop using tos as to refunds it makes you look ignorant to real law not that truth matters to rant I g internet tough guys

    Secondly

    Bragging you don't pay makes the developers sad, if you pay nothing your a leech on the game, sorry but that is truth , mobile games need leeches to build competition and strive to encourage purchasing trend but in the end if you do not spend the game ends

    Why is that so hard to understand??????? Nothing is free ever and harassing those of us who do are not paying to win we are paying to play, what winning is there?? No money or prizes change hands it's a game.... The perception of your strategy to another's cash is just that a perception neither of us care except that one of us is supporting cg and the other is not

    Have a wonderful night

    Don't forget to quote/tag next time. Don't be afraid of some conversation.

    You can try to rationalize your actions all you want. Some like to use the "I've got money and you don't approach", others use the "I'm just trying to support the developers" approach. There is a difference between pay to play, and pay to win. Pay to play is a subscription based model that exists as either the sole means of play, or as an up/sidegrade to the existing F2P model. Seeing how this game doesn't have a subscription model, pay to play doesn't apply, and everyone is by default F2P. Pay to win are those who make purchases of statistic based items, solely for the purpose of having as large of an advantage as possible, under the rationalization that you deserve the advantage because you contributed however much.

    In the real world, this makes absolute sense, given that life as we know it, is not fair. However, video games are designed to be generally fair for everyone involved, with a slight enticement for money contributing players to have a little extra. The Game's that do it best, are ones that offer cosmetics and other non-performance related items for real currency. However, their profit and success can vary.

    People have being paying money to play games for decades before mobile gaming and F2P model came around. The P2W players (plague) are why gaming is what it is today; a bunch of reduced/limited/unfinished content offered to the players in additional pay walls. People are willing to voice their opinions, but forget how to vote with their wallets. As long as it benefits you, it's ok, but as soon as you are on the other side of the table, you want justice. Then you get salty when it's pointed out how you ignored the Terms of Service agreement that you and MOST others refuse to read, purely out of laziness. You probably still wonder why you receive spam mail, and don't realize you sign away privacy rights when you create "free" accounts with certain companies.

    CG making a consolation offering doesn't mean the ToS doesn't work or isn't valid, it means they recognize their fault in the particular timing in which they instituted the character change. You can bet that players like yourself will buy another character, looking for extreme advantage, and that character will go through nerfs/buffs (I doubt you would complain about a buff though). Are you going to cry every time you make P2W decision and it changes on you.

    As far I could tell, there was NOTHING in the advertisement of her character pack that displayed her stats, nor promised she would perform at the levels she did. You received that information through third party means, and not an official advertisement. So what happened with the other stuff that cane in the pack? Did they change for better or worse? Did anything else get devalued?

    Good night, Human CentiPad.



  • Good on the Devs. Definitely helps in renewing some faith that your player base isn't entirely irrelevant.
  • Vampire_X wrote: »
    Terms of service keeps being thrown out here but your not smart marks (wrestling term for knowing the gimmicks)

    Terms decide how your allowed to access content, not that they can not be legally liable and in fact if you agree to pay a million dollars in qurora tos as a legal example it's not binding in federal court because terms only apply to access not liability

    So stop using tos as to refunds it makes you look ignorant to real law not that truth matters to rant I g internet tough guys

    Secondly

    Bragging you don't pay makes the developers sad, if you pay nothing your a leech on the game, sorry but that is truth , mobile games need leeches to build competition and strive to encourage purchasing trend but in the end if you do not spend the game ends

    Why is that so hard to understand??????? Nothing is free ever and harassing those of us who do are not paying to win we are paying to play, what winning is there?? No money or prizes change hands it's a game.... The perception of your strategy to another's cash is just that a perception neither of us care except that one of us is supporting cg and the other is not

    Have a wonderful night :)

    I have to add the F2P folks here expect to get an "even" playing field to us who pay to play. I wonder do they expect to get the luxury suite when they go to a hotel for the price of a standard room? Bottom line if you are going F2P you simply cannot expect to have an even playing field against those of us who invest and spend for our fun/hobby. If you got that why would we bother spending? As stated above CG and EA is a business, businesses are out to earn revenue and generate profit, customers(paying players) are the source of that revenue and profit. End of the day it is in their best interest to keep their actual customers happy as opposed to those who are just there for the free fun. Think about this. Who is the smart bartender going to prioritize and service better. The single customer in drinking water and eating the free pretzels as they watch the game, or the single consumer in buying food and drinks? This game is very fun, very cool, however when all is said and done it is a business venture and the paying customers should not be harassed and/or penalized by or because of the F2P people, period.
  • As a new player, and one who has spent roughly $500 plus in just over 2 weeks of play I was very upset and vocal on the nerf of the player I bought. Like others here I will see what the "gift" is before deciding how much more, if any I will invest in this game I thoroughly enjoy playing. I don't want the world. I'd hoped for a doubling in attack to compensate for the halving of the heal, but I understand why not done.

    I will say though that EA/CG stepping up, acknowledging the fact that many of us were upset and felt robbed and are taking action to make it right says a lot to me and will keep me playing, and spending on crystals for energy. What the gift is will determine the rate I spend and if I will buy any packs again. Thank you very much for stepping up and showing customer care it says a lot about you.

    Have a great night.

  • As far I could tell, there was NOTHING in the advertisement of her character pack that displayed her stats, nor promised she would perform at the levels she did. You received that information through third party means, and not an official advertisement. So what happened with the other stuff that cane in the pack? Did they change for better or worse? Did anything else get devalued?

    This isn't a matter of claiming false advertising, this IS about a product being devalued.

    Seriously, imagine you leased a Lexus and in the middle of the night a month later, the dealership came to your house and replaced the engine with a Mitsubishi Lancer engine. Do you really think that the car dealership would get away with that? Do you think leasing digital goods is any different?

  • Geddre wrote: »
    Pokebreaker - you and those like you need to understand something. Agreeing to "Terms of Service" is not the 100% shutdown you seem to think it is. Let's take this to extremes... Say they decided to change every one of the current characters to have abilities equal to Teebo and Night sister Acolyte. Then they released all new characters that actually do something, but they're pay only. Do you honestly believe they'd be able to hide behind TOS? Nope. Enforceability of something like that is entirely dependent on the userbases level of acceptance.

    In this case they pushed to far. Tons of people are rightfully getting their money back and EA is feeling it. I don't give a flying leap what I agree to... if I buy a super powerful game item and they change it to be garbage, I'm not bound by the TOS. This not the same as buying gems and using them on a character that ended up getting worse. This is actually taking away the item you bought and replacing it with something else that has the same name. That's not legal no matter what the TOS says.

    Lol, "those like me"? What, a responsible adult with self-control and the ability to read agreements BEFORE I agree?

    ToS isn't meant to be a "Shut Down". It's meant to show you lazy folks that they (Dev team) reserve the right to change the game how they see fit, and YOU agreed for them to be able to do so. You whiners getting a refund from Apple or Google store doesn't mean the changes were "illegal", it just means that your refund request met the criteria of Apple/Google's policies. Last I checked, they are not game developers, nor do they represent a legal decision. It's like refund policies that stores have, versus that of which your credit card company offers its cardholders. (I bet many of you don't even know about the extra protection services your credit card offers on purchases).

    Whining and having customer service actions work in your favor is NOT the same as taking the issue to court, where agreed terms ACTUALLY matter. You say it's not legal because you feel you were wronged, NOT because it's actually illegal.
  • It doesn't matter how many times you rant the same thing over and over about the Term of Service agreement. Southpark is a comedy show, it doesn't quite work that way. Enjoy the game and be glad someone else is paying for it so you don't have to!

    Obviously it doesn't work that way... It's satire and parody. You do understand what satire is, right? Or do you think the articles from The Onion are true?

    Gee thanks for doing me such a huge favor, bro. Would it make a difference if I said I spent $5, or would it then come down to how MUCH one spent? If I was a big spender and still made these statements, would I then be a traitor to the "paying class gamer"? Is it impossible to argue a point on principle, even if it doesn't benefit me?

    Try again.
  • ewok
    149 posts Member
    Pokebreaker is 100% on point on this matter.
  • Tryban wrote: »
    The steak analogy isn't the best, but still applicable.
    Even when signing, agreeing to a contract, there are still legal remedies when good faith and reasonableness are violated or if negligence or malfeasance applies. Otherwise, any scam can be perpetrated by simply getting one to sign a contract.
    I don't believe this was a scam. But there is a legitimate complaint here given the circumstances and timing. EA/CG are seeking a remedy, and it's certainly a reassuring sign toward demonstrating good faith.

    That I will agree with. Their timing of changing the character and not removing the character for purchase could have been done better. Then the question gets asked, if something is clearly so out of balance, how long is long enough to allow it to continue existing in its current state?

  • Aether wrote: »
    Yeah, a better analogy would be leasing a car and a month later the dealership came to your house in the middle of the night and replaced the car you leased with a cheaper car model. No Lease Agreement would save the car dealership from the lessee.

    Would it not? Has this been testing, or are we assuming. Is there any precedence? I know there have been laws instituted over the years to force businesses to provide ample notification to consumers. Most of which write the notification period into the contract/agreement. However if folks don't read it, they just assume it happened out of the blue and that they were wronged. Also, seeing how you are not the owner of EAs digital products (you're more renting), your paying for temporary use of an item that could cease to exist in the near future.

    Don't get me wrong, I understand the grievance from a consumer perspective. However, I like to play devil's advocate when it's applicable. Sometimes we feel we are entitled to way more than we actually are.
  • Blam
    113 posts Member
    I'll take 10000 energy and 2000000 credits so I can level and gear up two replacements for my nerfed Barriss and "bug fixed" resistance pilot. He went from being a glass cannon to a glass ornament and Barriss can no longer heal him. Oh and my war tokens I wasted building up a character who sucks now
  • Geddre wrote: »
    Anything short of a 4 star Luminara with enough gear to get her up to gear level 6 isn't going to cut it here. I paid hard earned money for the healer that was destroying me every time I came up against her. Not this current useless gimmick. Now I'm getting worked over having not gone after Luminara from day 1.

    Good luck with that.
  • Aether
    39 posts Member
    edited December 2015
    Aether wrote: »
    Yeah, a better analogy would be leasing a car and a month later the dealership came to your house in the middle of the night and replaced the car you leased with a cheaper car model. No Lease Agreement would save the car dealership from the lessee.

    Would it not? Has this been testing, or are we assuming. Is there any precedence? I know there have been laws instituted over the years to force businesses to provide ample notification to consumers. Most of which write the notification period into the contract/agreement. However if folks don't read it, they just assume it happened out of the blue and that they were wronged. Also, seeing how you are not the owner of EAs digital products (you're more renting), your paying for temporary use of an item that could cease to exist in the near future.

    Don't get me wrong, I understand the grievance from a consumer perspective. However, I like to play devil's advocate when it's applicable. Sometimes we feel we are entitled to way more than we actually are.

    So I did say "leasing" which for all intents and purposes here is akin to renting.

    That minor point aside, there is a lack of trial law precedent and statutory regulations governing digital goods in general. One of the ways they also keep that down is by requiring binding arbitration which this TOS does as well.

    So the answer to whether or not this would be ruled in favor of Bariss purchasers or not is a firm "maybe" in my humble opinion. I do not have access to the case law required to find any similar cases against other companies though and am not a lawyer so I can't say for sure. Guess you'd just have to go to arbitration and find out. :smile:
  • Everyone who bought barris got use out of her, ranked high in arena and still own a solid character they wont have to farm 80 shards for in the future regardless.

    Im honestly annoyed. So what about the players that didnt purchase this pack? Your much larger low budget free to play player base?

    They had to put up with fighting 4 star barris from day one with 3 star chewies, then the buyers who used barris to rank up top in arena are still getting more gifts?

    Im not happy about it, mainly because depending on the gift, Ill have even more of an arena challenge. But congats to everyone, your purchase was obviously good.
  • AdamW wrote: »
    Everyone who bought barris got use out of her, ranked high in arena and still own a solid character they wont have to farm 80 shards for in the future regardless.

    I started the game very recently (little over a week ago), and bought the Dooku pack and was recently offered the Barris pack. I thought about it for a couple days and picked it up. It got nerfed a few days after that. Not everyone had the opportunity to really reap these massive benefits that others have had. I have no intention of asking for any sort of refund from Google, but I did feel that she was over nerfed rather than balanced.

    I would have been content with the balance if they gave her a more focused type of role such as sustained healing over time. This would significantly reduce her pvp advantage while making her useful for other situations. For example, reducing her heal to 5%-15% from the 15%-30%, but moving the heal a little to invigorating strike, making it up to 100% chance to heal the party for 2.5%/5% from a 30% chance of 5%/10%. It would give her a justification to continue to have a poor attack, while giving her a more clearly defined role for a person to choose when to use her.
  • Telaan
    3454 posts Member
    AdamW wrote: »
    Everyone who bought barris got use out of her, ranked high in arena and still own a solid character they wont have to farm 80 shards for in the future regardless.

    Im honestly annoyed. So what about the players that didnt purchase this pack? Your much larger low budget free to play player base?

    They had to put up with fighting 4 star barris from day one with 3 star chewies, then the buyers who used barris to rank up top in arena are still getting more gifts?

    Im not happy about it, mainly because depending on the gift, Ill have even more of an arena challenge. But congats to everyone, your purchase was obviously good.

    Wait....you're upset about not being compensated for something you didn't purchase while simultaneously complaining about being at a disadvantage as a f2p player in a p2w model? You win the Internet sir.
  • Aether wrote: »
    Aether wrote: »
    Yeah, a better analogy would be leasing a car and a month later the dealership came to your house in the middle of the night and replaced the car you leased with a cheaper car model. No Lease Agreement would save the car dealership from the lessee.

    Would it not? Has this been testing, or are we assuming. Is there any precedence? I know there have been laws instituted over the years to force businesses to provide ample notification to consumers. Most of which write the notification period into the contract/agreement. However if folks don't read it, they just assume it happened out of the blue and that they were wronged. Also, seeing how you are not the owner of EAs digital products (you're more renting), your paying for temporary use of an item that could cease to exist in the near future.

    Don't get me wrong, I understand the grievance from a consumer perspective. However, I like to play devil's advocate when it's applicable. Sometimes we feel we are entitled to way more than we actually are.

    So I did say "leasing" which for all intents and purposes here is akin to renting.

    That minor point aside, there is a lack of trial law precedent and statutory regulations governing digital goods in general. One of the ways they also keep that down is by requiring binding arbitration which this TOS does as well.

    So the answer to whether or not this would be ruled in favor of Bariss purchasers or not is a firm "maybe" in my humble opinion. I do not have access to the case law required to find any similar cases against other companies though and am not a lawyer so I can't say for sure. Guess you'd just have to go to arbitration and find out. :smile:

    Fair enough, good sir/ma'am. It would be interesting if someone did take it further. I'd love to be a fly on a wall in that courtroom.
  • Thank you EA/CG for this response!

    While you certainly need to do the balancing you feel is required for the game, one key problem here is that as a competitive player (although still not at the "end-game" of lvl 60) it still feels like you were very heavy-handed with the nerf-hammer on a character that would be very hard to gain additional stars for and therefor not very likely to see much play at very high levels.

    I hope you see this as a learning experience in how a balancing change should be announced for a well-marketed product. Hopefully you put some thought into what compensation you send out.
  • Geddre
    224 posts Member
    edited December 2015
    Geddre wrote: »
    Pokebreaker - you and those like you need to understand something. Agreeing to "Terms of Service" is not the 100% shutdown you seem to think it is. Let's take this to extremes... Say they decided to change every one of the current characters to have abilities equal to Teebo and Night sister Acolyte. Then they released all new characters that actually do something, but they're pay only. Do you honestly believe they'd be able to hide behind TOS? Nope. Enforceability of something like that is entirely dependent on the userbases level of acceptance.

    In this case they pushed to far. Tons of people are rightfully getting their money back and EA is feeling it. I don't give a flying leap what I agree to... if I buy a super powerful game item and they change it to be garbage, I'm not bound by the TOS. This not the same as buying gems and using them on a character that ended up getting worse. This is actually taking away the item you bought and replacing it with something else that has the same name. That's not legal no matter what the TOS says.

    Lol, "those like me"? What, a responsible adult with self-control and the ability to read agreements BEFORE I agree?

    ToS isn't meant to be a "Shut Down". It's meant to show you lazy folks that they (Dev team) reserve the right to change the game how they see fit, and YOU agreed for them to be able to do so. You whiners getting a refund from Apple or Google store doesn't mean the changes were "illegal", it just means that your refund request met the criteria of Apple/Google's policies. Last I checked, they are not game developers, nor do they represent a legal decision. It's like refund policies that stores have, versus that of which your credit card company offers its cardholders. (I bet many of you don't even know about the extra protection services your credit card offers on purchases).

    Whining and having customer service actions work in your favor is NOT the same as taking the issue to court, where agreed terms ACTUALLY matter. You say it's not legal because you feel you were wronged, NOT because it's actually illegal.

    Lol, wow... Touchy aren't you? You write well, but you've been taken to school on this thread sport. And please know, you're the whiner here. Just because you're taking your time with your posts doesn't change that.

    I, in fact, did read the TOS and there is *nothing* in it saying they can take your money for an advetized item, then remove said item entirely and replace it with something else. So what is it that you feel is in there that allows them to steal the Aston Martin and leave the Fiat in it's place?

    I wonder what your particular damage is? Why are you are so insensed by people being justifiably angry about getting ripped off that you feel the need to individually argue with each and every person? Is your dad on the dev team or something?
    Post edited by Geddre on
  • Geddre
    224 posts Member
    edited December 2015

    As far I could tell, there was NOTHING in the advertisement of her character pack that displayed her stats, nor promised she would perform at the levels she did. You received that information through third party means, and not an official advertisement. So what happened with the other stuff that cane in the pack? Did they change for better or worse? Did anything else get devalued?


    Good lord, do you ever get tired of being wrong? She was absolutely advertised 100% as a specific set of abilities. I spent 10 days seeing first hand what she did before I pulled the trigger with 10 minutes left before the offer expired. I was marketed THAT character and knowingly chose THAT character for $50. Not this pathetic trash I have now.
  • Entitled to way more, like a "balanced" playing field when you feel "disadvantaged?"...lol
    I like playing devil's advocate, too.
    So, f2p didn't want to or couldn't pay to get her sooner and felt uncompetitive against those with her. To remove the immediate p2w advantage, the complaints of op start, compound, to shift "advantage" back to f2p, who get "balance" over time vs immediate premium of money.
    I didn't think Barriss was OP. I'm not a brilliant gamer but had no problem developing a strategy to beat teams with her, even before I got her. I'd agree she was powerful so early in the game, but that's why people paid to get her sooner instead of grinding over time. People with Sidious have an advantage if you don't have Barriss. Does not paying or not having some characters sooner put you at a competitive disadvantage in the short term, you betcha. Equal opportunity choice, pay for sooner, or grind and catch up over time.
    With such differing opinions, I'd be curious to see some data supporting how op Barriss was believed to be. I've seen data in other games supporting classes or characters having a significant, indefensible advantage in damage, health, cooldowns, etc., made sense to adjust. I've also seen nerfs simply because people complained, whined (squeaky wheel theory). With such diverse characters, roles, abilities, play status, etc., "balance" isn't really achieveable. Nerf this character, another becomes op, then another, and so on until aggravation sets in; pay for sooner or play free and be disadvantaged until you catch up over time. I might have a different opinion if I saw data supporting Barriss was op. But, still wouldn't change my opinion that those paying have a complaint given circumstances.
    This whole thing is highly amusing. There are extreme whiners on both sides. Have seen it in other games too; the class struggle between f2p, p2p, and p2w.
    Thank goodness chess was invented long ago or poor strategists today might say she was op...lol
    Thanks EA for listening to both sides, trying to please as many as possible, and trying to make things better for those feeling slighted. Love the game and when is Yoda gonna be available...lol
    "That is why you fail."
  • Good to see they acknowledge there is something that needs fixing, but let's first see what we get first.
  • Geddre wrote: »
    Geddre wrote: »
    Pokebreaker - you and those like you need to understand something. Agreeing to "Terms of Service" is not the 100% shutdown you seem to think it is. Let's take this to extremes... Say they decided to change every one of the current characters to have abilities equal to Teebo and Night sister Acolyte. Then they released all new characters that actually do something, but they're pay only. Do you honestly believe they'd be able to hide behind TOS? Nope. Enforceability of something like that is entirely dependent on the userbases level of acceptance.

    In this case they pushed to far. Tons of people are rightfully getting their money back and EA is feeling it. I don't give a flying leap what I agree to... if I buy a super powerful game item and they change it to be garbage, I'm not bound by the TOS. This not the same as buying gems and using them on a character that ended up getting worse. This is actually taking away the item you bought and replacing it with something else that has the same name. That's not legal no matter what the TOS says.

    Lol, "those like me"? What, a responsible adult with self-control and the ability to read agreements BEFORE I agree?

    ToS isn't meant to be a "Shut Down". It's meant to show you lazy folks that they (Dev team) reserve the right to change the game how they see fit, and YOU agreed for them to be able to do so. You whiners getting a refund from Apple or Google store doesn't mean the changes were "illegal", it just means that your refund request met the criteria of Apple/Google's policies. Last I checked, they are not game developers, nor do they represent a legal decision. It's like refund policies that stores have, versus that of which your credit card company offers its cardholders. (I bet many of you don't even know about the extra protection services your credit card offers on purchases).

    Whining and having customer service actions work in your favor is NOT the same as taking the issue to court, where agreed terms ACTUALLY matter. You say it's not legal because you feel you were wronged, NOT because it's actually illegal.

    Lol, wow... Touchy aren't you? You write well, but you've been taken to school on this thread sport. And please know, you're the whiner here. Just because you're taking your time with your posts doesn't change that. Spend less time on forums and more times at a real job and maybe you can afford to buy a character pack and see what it feels like to have your Lexus replaced with a Fiat.

    This doesn't effect me either way it goes. I argue on principle alone. Seems you might fall into the group I previously described, seeing how you've come out of nowhere to write a lazy post to respond to me. You even took the cliche "I've got more money than you" route, which has NEVER been done before... Seeing how neither of us could verify each other's income and daily workload, it's as silly as making online threats of having your dad come beat me up.

    By your reasoning, if a person has money, they MUST spend it in a silly manner. They aren't allowed to think like a responsible adult.

    Thanks for the compliments though. I like to keep my writing honed.
  • Geddre wrote: »

    As far I could tell, there was NOTHING in the advertisement of her character pack that displayed her stats, nor promised she would perform at the levels she did. You received that information through third party means, and not an official advertisement. So what happened with the other stuff that cane in the pack? Did they change for better or worse? Did anything else get devalued?


    Good lord, do you ever get tired of being wrong? She was absolutely advertised 100% as a specific set of abilities. I spent 10 days seeing first hand what she did before I pulled the trigger with 10 minutes left before the offer expired. I was marketed THAT character and knowingly chose THAT character for $50. Not this pathetic trash I have now.

    A specific set of ABILITIES, of which she still has. They didn't advertise how (over)effective her abilities were; That you obtained third-party.
This discussion has been closed.