So yeah, i purched a weapon on the RMAH before 1.0.3. I came accross a post on kotaku that reflects what I think about the subject.
''After the last patch went through that *destroyed* Attack Speed and cut the DPS on items by a significant amount in the game, many many many people called their banks to get a refund on the items they purchased on the Auction House. And this brings up an interesting problem with online digital goods being sold for real world money: What happens when the item you bought is then changed on you after you purchased it? It’s no longer the item you wanted anymore. You bought a 1180 dps one-hander with a 10% increase in Attack speed. You go to bed, wake up in the morning, and now that item you just spent 150 bucks on is now an 800 dps one-hander with a 2% increase in attack speed.
That is NOT the product that you exchanged money for. You were swindled. This is the real world equivalent of buying a 2012 Mustang, parking it in your driveway and then finding that in the middle of the night the dealership swapped it out with a 2001 Ford Fiesta, and still kept all your money.
Now true, there is a very real and legally binding Terms of Service or EULA that we all "read" and signed saying we agreed that this exact thing is okay to do to us, but what does this mean for the future of digital purchases if indeed we are moving into a new business model of micro-transactions and "store browsing" as Peter Moore was discussing in his posted interview the other day.
Can the game company take your money and then nerf the item you bought into the ground? What about changing that amazing piece of armor you bought into a stats-less pink dress?
Do we have ANY recourse as consumers for this kind of bait-and-switch tactic?''
You do the same as you'd do in any situation where you're parting with your money:
You get informed and make intelligent decisions based on all the information. In this particular case all the information was available long before the nerfs were implemented, and also long before the RMAH was even active. If you still bought items and then got angry over the nerfs, it's your own fault.
Also, this is laughable:
Now true, there is a very real and legally binding Terms of Service or EULA that we all "read" and signed saying we agreed that this exact thing is okay to do to us, but[...]
In other words, 'I don't want to have to worry about 'legal' pish posh tosh, I just want to get everything my way all the time! me me me me me!'
The EULA/ToS is there for a reason. Read it and know it. Stay informed of all of Blizzard's decisions and upcoming changes to the game. Blizzard let us know way in advance of the nerfs AND the RMAH going active that they were going to make these changes. It isn't their fault in the slightest.
Now true, there is a very real and legally binding Terms of Service or EULA that we all "read" and signed saying we agreed that this exact thing is okay to do to us
You answered your own question. If you don't want to take the chance of an item you spent real money on changing, don't use the ah.
Public policy concerns, contract theory(fairness), and normal course of dealings(acknowledgement that everyone or a lot of people accepts the EULA ) might have a judge rule in favor of the consumer if this ever went to court.
It would be too one sided to have a EULA that says "we can do anything and you are helpless" to be legally binding. Basic contract implied warranties say you get the item you contracted for and paid consideration for.
Public policy concerns, contract theory(fairness), and normal course of dealings(acknowledgement that everyone or a lot of people accepts the EULA ) might have a judge rule in favor of the consumer if this ever went to court.
It would be too one sided to have a EULA that says "we can do anything and you are helpless" to be legally binding. Basic contract implied warranties say you get the item you contracted for and paid consideration for.
"EULA's can't circumvent the law."
Im happy someone else understand.
The minimum blizzard should do it buff other stats on the weapon so that DPS refelct what I have purchased 4 days ago.
It's not a bait-and-switch tactic. It's entirely acceptable under the ToS and EULA that you agreed to operate under. It's a raw deal, to be sure, and I feel for you, but it's not illicit or nefarious or anything like that. You're not going to get a lot of sympathy from people when one party of a contractual agreement exercises the rights granted them by said contract.
I think a lot of things get sketchy with the RMAH and this is one of them. I whole heartedly agree that it's not right to nerf existing items when there's a RMAH.
Sure, you could say it was communicated to fans before the change but I'm sorry... not everyone keeps up with news on the game. Believe it or not, D3fans is a minority of the community and there are tons of people (that use the RMAH) that had no idea that their items would change over night. You can be elitest and blame them for their ignorance I guess but that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a fair change to them. Also, even people "in the know" didn't know weapons would be affected as well. Personally, I didn't think they would touch weapons and I was a bit surprised to see that they changed them as well.
As far as legal ground... I'm not a lawyer (and I'm sure most of you aren't) so that's a story between you and them.... it's not something that belongs here
Until someone actually has a case heard in court "a judge might rule XYZ" is meaningless. A judge might do a lot of things. Forum speculation on what a judge might do is pointless. Blizzard had a team of contract and finance lawyers (not to mention economists) to design the current system in a way that they felt legally protected them. Whatever questions you have, they've already been thought about and referenced against the most applicable legal precedent.
That is not to say an excellent lawyer might not be able to come up with a challenge that holds water. But really, does anyone here think they've discovered a legal scenario Blizzard hasn't prepared for with the RMAH? Really?
(I wouldn't normally argue from incredulity or appeal to authority, as they are normally logical fallacies and that just isn't my style. That said when people are putting forth speculation about legal scenarios despite having no legal expertise themselves I think it's only fair to place a heavy burden of proof solely on someone who poses the hypothesis)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I grew up gaming without internet forums. The entire phenomenon of being upset with a game developer makes no sense to me. No sense. I cannot imagine spending my time and energy being upset about something I choose to do for recreation.
I think a lot of things get sketchy with the RMAH and this is one of them. I whole heartedly agree that it's not right to nerf existing items when there's a RMAH.
Sure, you could say it was communicated to fans before the change but I'm sorry... not everyone keeps up with news on the game. Believe it or not, D3fans is a minority of the community and there are tons of people (that use the RMAH) that had no idea that their items would change over night. You can be elitest and blame them for their ignorance I guess but that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a fair change to them. Also, even people "in the know" didn't know weapons would be affected as well. Personally, I didn't think they would touch weapons and I was a bit surprised to see that they changed them as well.
As far as legal ground... I'm not a lawyer (and I'm sure most of you aren't) so that's a story between you and them.... it's not something that belongs here
As previously stated, this arguement doesnt really cut it. You are made to agree to a terms of use before you play the game. You don't have to agree to the terms of using this software, but be not agreeing you give up your right to play the game.
think of it in terms of buying a house. Lets say you buy a house for $100k. a few weeks after your happy purchase, the local council build a massive ugly prison RIGHT next to your house. the building of the prison had been public knowledge for months before they got permission to build, yet it slipped under your nose. Now your house is only worth $75k.
Just because the value of your house was "nerfed" doesnt mean your entiled to a refund. You SHOULD have anticipated that it would lose value.
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying it was illegal, I just said that I thought it's morally questionable.
I think almost everyone would agree that it's a raw deal to buy something for real money and have it changed on them weeks or days afterwards. Should the buyer have known better in this case? Yes. Does it suck that it happened? Most definitely.
As an accountant and continuing student of contract law, there are certainly a few issues with this exchange. Based on my experience, I do not think this case would be "thrown out." The underlying issue, however, is the fact that it is based on virtual goods. It isn't a car or other tangible asset, which could easily be valued by a variety of methods (dealerships can give you a valuation from their Blue Books, us accountants can develop insanely complex models to value just about anything that is tangible and has a use,) it's an item inside of a game that will not have any future benefit aside from being re-sold (at a loss in your case.)
My opinion is that the RMAH probably shouldn't exist. To me, there are too many issues that can arise - like this one. My other concern is reporting income generated by virtual item sales - is Blizzard going to issue 1099's? Are the teenagers and adults who play D3 able to accurately keep track of purchase price and selling price? Is this some sort of investment, or is it a business venture, or is it a hobby that produces revenues? Did blizzard ever think of the tax implications to these people? I doubt everyone is an accountant and has the know-how, or even KNOWS that they NEED TO keep track of these things. I am willing to bet that the million people transacting on the RMAH are never going to even think they have to report this income. What if someone makes $5k this year selling weapons and items? Is that just money that will never be taxed? I'll tell you that it should be, and if anyone was ever audited and deposits were found, you'd be reporting them as other ordinary income based on gross sales, and you'd have a very hard time insisting that you paid $100 for it, then sold it for $80 at a loss and shouldn't be taxed.
Nothing is static in its value. Absolutely nothing.
Couple of things sparked my interest in responding to the OP:
You agreed to a service that can do whatever it wants to the things it owns, which in this case is everything within the game. You can't simpy use a 'house-buying' analogy with it, the transactions are completely different and involve a distinct set of rules.
The future of this business model is not in question, it is legimitately growing and will continue to do so, have no doubt about it. What may change is a couple of regulatory concepts to be on par with the community (market) feedback.
Also, if the person that bought the weapon had a post-patch buff of some kind, would there be annoying QQ about it? Hell no, there would be rejoicing and braggadaccios about how much money you made off it or how you own bosses in 0.25 secs.
Understand what you are doing by buying shit like this.
You can be elitest and blame them for their ignorance I guess but that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a fair change to them. Also, even people "in the know" didn't know weapons would be affected as well. Personally, I didn't think they would touch weapons and I was a bit surprised to see that they changed them as well.
How is it elitist? Everyone is responsible for their own actions, so especially when it comes to purchasing things with real money, people are expected to look into if something does what they want it to do before they buy it.
Also, you state something as fact which is clearly an opinion. The change was fair as it was made with game balance in mind, IAS was WAY overbudget so it got reduced. It's not like it became worse than other stats, just pulled in line with (possible counter argument is crit/crit damage, but that is due to scaling and this was like this before 1.0.3 as well).
They made it very clear that the change would be because of item budget, so all items were affected. Why did you think weapons would be excluded? That would make IAS on weapons even MORE overpowered (as it would be the single most powerful upgrade you would be able to get).
I see this no differently than other purchases that go down in value after a while: you could use it at it's max potential for a while, but if you wanted that to last, you shoulda done some research first.
Fact is, sure, you can go to the bank and try to pull back the money you paid for the item, but, if you do, I believe Blizzard is likely to ban the whole account for fraud. If you buy on the RMAH, and say it was a bad transaction, i.e. stolen card, then Blizzard's going to ban the account, or at least ban RMAH use, and make the item disappear from your character when they get the chargeback.
I have no sympathy for the OP. Take responsibility for your own actions. Research your $150 purchase before doing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
''After the last patch went through that *destroyed* Attack Speed and cut the DPS on items by a significant amount in the game, many many many people called their banks to get a refund on the items they purchased on the Auction House. And this brings up an interesting problem with online digital goods being sold for real world money: What happens when the item you bought is then changed on you after you purchased it? It’s no longer the item you wanted anymore. You bought a 1180 dps one-hander with a 10% increase in Attack speed. You go to bed, wake up in the morning, and now that item you just spent 150 bucks on is now an 800 dps one-hander with a 2% increase in attack speed.
That is NOT the product that you exchanged money for. You were swindled. This is the real world equivalent of buying a 2012 Mustang, parking it in your driveway and then finding that in the middle of the night the dealership swapped it out with a 2001 Ford Fiesta, and still kept all your money.
Now true, there is a very real and legally binding Terms of Service or EULA that we all "read" and signed saying we agreed that this exact thing is okay to do to us, but what does this mean for the future of digital purchases if indeed we are moving into a new business model of micro-transactions and "store browsing" as Peter Moore was discussing in his posted interview the other day.
Can the game company take your money and then nerf the item you bought into the ground? What about changing that amazing piece of armor you bought into a stats-less pink dress?
Do we have ANY recourse as consumers for this kind of bait-and-switch tactic?''
You get informed and make intelligent decisions based on all the information. In this particular case all the information was available long before the nerfs were implemented, and also long before the RMAH was even active. If you still bought items and then got angry over the nerfs, it's your own fault.
Also, this is laughable:
In other words, 'I don't want to have to worry about 'legal' pish posh tosh, I just want to get everything my way all the time! me me me me me!'
The EULA/ToS is there for a reason. Read it and know it. Stay informed of all of Blizzard's decisions and upcoming changes to the game. Blizzard let us know way in advance of the nerfs AND the RMAH going active that they were going to make these changes. It isn't their fault in the slightest.
You answered your own question. If you don't want to take the chance of an item you spent real money on changing, don't use the ah.
wow u americans are rly crazy.....and stupid
It would be too one sided to have a EULA that says "we can do anything and you are helpless" to be legally binding. Basic contract implied warranties say you get the item you contracted for and paid consideration for.
"EULA's can't circumvent the law."
Im happy someone else understand.
The minimum blizzard should do it buff other stats on the weapon so that DPS refelct what I have purchased 4 days ago.
Sure, you could say it was communicated to fans before the change but I'm sorry... not everyone keeps up with news on the game. Believe it or not, D3fans is a minority of the community and there are tons of people (that use the RMAH) that had no idea that their items would change over night. You can be elitest and blame them for their ignorance I guess but that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a fair change to them. Also, even people "in the know" didn't know weapons would be affected as well. Personally, I didn't think they would touch weapons and I was a bit surprised to see that they changed them as well.
As far as legal ground... I'm not a lawyer (and I'm sure most of you aren't) so that's a story between you and them.... it's not something that belongs here
That is not to say an excellent lawyer might not be able to come up with a challenge that holds water. But really, does anyone here think they've discovered a legal scenario Blizzard hasn't prepared for with the RMAH? Really?
(I wouldn't normally argue from incredulity or appeal to authority, as they are normally logical fallacies and that just isn't my style. That said when people are putting forth speculation about legal scenarios despite having no legal expertise themselves I think it's only fair to place a heavy burden of proof solely on someone who poses the hypothesis)
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying it was illegal, I just said that I thought it's morally questionable.
I think almost everyone would agree that it's a raw deal to buy something for real money and have it changed on them weeks or days afterwards. Should the buyer have known better in this case? Yes. Does it suck that it happened? Most definitely.
My opinion is that the RMAH probably shouldn't exist. To me, there are too many issues that can arise - like this one. My other concern is reporting income generated by virtual item sales - is Blizzard going to issue 1099's? Are the teenagers and adults who play D3 able to accurately keep track of purchase price and selling price? Is this some sort of investment, or is it a business venture, or is it a hobby that produces revenues? Did blizzard ever think of the tax implications to these people? I doubt everyone is an accountant and has the know-how, or even KNOWS that they NEED TO keep track of these things. I am willing to bet that the million people transacting on the RMAH are never going to even think they have to report this income. What if someone makes $5k this year selling weapons and items? Is that just money that will never be taxed? I'll tell you that it should be, and if anyone was ever audited and deposits were found, you'd be reporting them as other ordinary income based on gross sales, and you'd have a very hard time insisting that you paid $100 for it, then sold it for $80 at a loss and shouldn't be taxed.
I'm going to avoid the RMAH for these reasons.
Couple of things sparked my interest in responding to the OP:
You agreed to a service that can do whatever it wants to the things it owns, which in this case is everything within the game. You can't simpy use a 'house-buying' analogy with it, the transactions are completely different and involve a distinct set of rules.
The future of this business model is not in question, it is legimitately growing and will continue to do so, have no doubt about it. What may change is a couple of regulatory concepts to be on par with the community (market) feedback.
Also, if the person that bought the weapon had a post-patch buff of some kind, would there be annoying QQ about it? Hell no, there would be rejoicing and braggadaccios about how much money you made off it or how you own bosses in 0.25 secs.
Understand what you are doing by buying shit like this.
Also, you state something as fact which is clearly an opinion. The change was fair as it was made with game balance in mind, IAS was WAY overbudget so it got reduced. It's not like it became worse than other stats, just pulled in line with (possible counter argument is crit/crit damage, but that is due to scaling and this was like this before 1.0.3 as well).
They made it very clear that the change would be because of item budget, so all items were affected. Why did you think weapons would be excluded? That would make IAS on weapons even MORE overpowered (as it would be the single most powerful upgrade you would be able to get).
I see this no differently than other purchases that go down in value after a while: you could use it at it's max potential for a while, but if you wanted that to last, you shoulda done some research first.
I have no sympathy for the OP. Take responsibility for your own actions. Research your $150 purchase before doing it.