Store refunds/account bans
Cranky (SC)
✭✭✭✭✭
in The Bridge
Is it in the STT game or forum terms that discussing refunds from providers (eg Apple or Google) is a ban-able offence?
I’ve just read in a Polywater Yar thread that someone was banned for discussing their story.
A bit shocked by this if it’s to be taken at face value.
I’ve just read in a Polywater Yar thread that someone was banned for discussing their story.
A bit shocked by this if it’s to be taken at face value.
5
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It seems unlikely.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
I doubt this also, but the Terms of Service may be found here:
https://www.disruptorbeam.com/tos/
🖖🏻
I posted in a thread. JazzRiker closed it. And within an hour I was banned.
Comment moderated. Posting private exchanges with support is not allowed.
Then you got a refund. By going to your payment method merchant, instead of the merchant you purchased the product from?
And, you think you were banned because you discussed it?
Do you think that there might be another reason?
And as long as they are actually willing to make things right when they do something stupid (like Poly-gate) that seems totally reasonable. The problem is, they aren't making it right, as we've seen over and over again in these threads. They're leaving a lot of people who have tried to work within their system dissatisfied and saying, "sorry, we're not going to help you because we don't want to. We've got your money, take a hike." This is just completely unacceptable. And banning people because DB isn't willing to do the responsible thing is completely reprehensible. DB just wants to sweep it under the rug, because it's worked for them in the past. I don't think that's going to be the case this time. People aren't going to drop it this time because the players know they're right, and they know DB is wrong. Time isn't going to change that. The longer this goes on without DB owning their mistake and making acceptable reparations the more negatively it's going to impact their bottom line.
Disruptor Beam refused to give refunds, despite providing a different product than the one paid for.
If you pay for a red sofa, and then the store only wants to give you a blue sofa, the customer has the right to a refund instead. What DB has done in this case is absolutely shameful. You can shout about the EULA until you're red in the face, but I'm shocked to see someone defend this practice.
(I didn't spend any real money myself. I just have this thing called "empathy".)
Someone else in my fleet got banned due to it (afaik, posting on that thread). They aren't joking about it, but they're joking about the in game bugs.
(Sorry, had to say it)
I’m not sure what you’re getting at? I wasn’t banned for discussing it. I was banned for having a transaction reversed through Apple because DB would not make it right. But the only proof DB has of this is my forum posts, because Apple does not show developers who they issue refunds to. There were a few other people in the same thread that were also banned for admitting that they pursued refunds in the same thread.
Does that help clarify?
I just popped back in after a couple of weeks since the ban to see if anything was different and this thread was relevant.
I’m not trying to play the victim here. Admiral Pasty asked a question, I had an answer and some proof, so I posted. The end.
Even if DB offered me my old account back, I wouldn’t take it at this point. It’s been a few weeks and I don’t feel like I’m a hostage to a developer that doesn’t care anymore. I’ve moved back to more traditional games without the micro transaction scene and am very happy.
Would it be nice to be refunded for the rest of the hundreds (thousands?) of dollars of digital items that I no longer have access to? Yes, of course. But I’m chalking it up to a life lesson about games built around micro transactions.
Anyway, if anyone has any other questions I’ll pop back in here once or twice over the next few days, but then I’m disappearing again, likely for good.
Empathy, while a tremendous boon to personal growth and enrichment, is not a trait useful to this discussion. Galdran essentially described the modern version of the genie in a bottle allegory, namely that the customer in both situations when introduced to the prospect of something new and exciting (for the finder of the genie's lamp it is the prospect of having wishes granted, for new players to STT it is the prospect of playing a Star Trek themed game that allows people to assemble a crew across all franchises) and how the individual skips over the fine print at the beginning, leaps head first into new situation, and then gets blindsided at the end when the fine print comes back to bite them (with the genie it is that the wishes are frequently not fulfilled in the way the wisher intends and there is no take-backs, and with STT it is that every player signed a document giving DB the right to make changes to crew).
In essence, the only way to play this game is to agree to the terms of service, which if read states that DB has the right to make changes to existing content. It is the responsibility of the player to be aware of that. Based on this I see absolutely no reasonable way a player dissatisfied with the handling of the Polywater Yar situation can demand or expect a refund. Caveat emptor.
That being said, I see nothing wrong with customers in this situation asking DB for redress, that was a mighty big rug that was pulled out from under a lot of people, and their anger is justified. It seems rather shortsighted for DB to stand on a rigid interpretation of the terms of service and refuse to address the situation at all; it is a classic example of winning the battle but losing the war, as this single event is likely to have generated a lot of money in the short-term, but will just as likely lead to a reduction in revenue long-term.
But, it is their right to do that, and if that is the choice they have made, so be it. At that point the dissatisfied customer has but three choices: accept this decision and continue playing normally, reluctantly accept the decision with an adjusted sense of DB's operational tactics and spend less/no money in the future, or quit playing. That is the only freedom given to the player in this situation.
Players are not going to get refunds for this, that seems clear. I applaud Captain Jellico for having the wisdom to accept this fate, and I wish the same for everyone else. Acceptance is the key to happiness, because until that happens the wound created by this is just going to remain festering and painful. I really feel badly for you all, and moving forward all of us will need to take a hard look at how you were treated by DB and make our own choices regarding how we all proceed with our accounts.
No.
Edit: sorry, just a one-word answer seems a little rude. No, I disagree with your opinion that a EULA supersedes legal consumer rights. I don't think they're technically connected in this case, despite that being the knee-jerk appearance.
What has happened here is that Captain Jellico has the refund they are entitled to, and Disruptor Beam have withdrawn access to their service, which is also something they are entitled to do.
Players are going to get refunds for this if they want to. It's just that Disruptor Beam can remove their access to Timelines if they want to, without legal repercussion (although I agree with you that there will be some financial repercussion).
I should clarify my point then. Clearly there is a path for players to get a refund by doing the described work around, I should have been more precise and stated that at this point it seems clear that DB is not going to directly refund anybody, and that players expecting this outcome should comes to terms with that reality.
I agree with everything you said however, it is possible for a player to acquire a refund by going over DB's heads, and that in so doing DB has the right to terminate their account. Sorry for the unintended miscommunication.
DB always has the right to terminate any account. They do not need any legal grounds. It's their service to offer to anyone.
They did not have to wait for Captain Jellico to force a refund. They could have done it at any time, and given any reason, or no reason at all.
That's the awkwardness with this situation. IF somebody had the time and inclination to take them to court over an act like this, DB'd simply point out that the refund has already been issued (by Apple). But they couldn't be legally forced to reinstate the account. They could simply say they have chosen to discontinue the account. They wouldn't even have to give a reason.
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
Shaka, when the walls fell.
I think it's:
"DB, when the walls fell."
We still have the right for companies to refuse service to customers as long as they are not discriminating illegally.
This would appear to be a perfectly legal reason to refuse service to someone.
Point of reference though even if you have signed up to a TOS - there is such a thing as "unreasonable terms," particularly if any part of it can be used and exploited to the detriment of the consumer, if this can be proven then any outcome would most likely side in the consumers favour.
In Germany we had some rulings about banned accounts. At least in cases of cheating/bot using the courts ruled in favor of the company and said that the account ban was legal, even in cases were people spent lots of money in the game which was lost with the ban. But the courts always checked the ToS and also ruled that it was a violation of the German Civil Code as well as cheating/bot using is considered as a harmful interference a company doesn't have to tolerate.
In cases were people got a refund from Apple/Google for an offer which gets nerfed right after it was bought/released and get their account banned because they got a refund, it will be pretty tricky in Germany. Courts will check if the demand for a refund was reasonable and justified by implicitly checking if the offer might be considered as a bait and switch offer or if the game provider had a right to change the stats of the virtual item. In general, game providers have the right to change the balancing of games and nerf or buff stats of items or crew if it is necessary for the game balancing (like it is written in their ToS). But in cases were they do it right after a release when many people spent lots of money for it, they probably will have to prove that they are doing a general QA to avoid such balancing problems and it might even end up in a legal refund opportunity. But I don't want to bet how such a case would be decided in Germany. This will be a coinflip decision, depending on the court and justice. It really depends on the details of the case and probably on how often such nerfs right after a release occured in the past and how good the general QA is to prevent such things.
Just checking back in on this thread. It doesn’t look like anyone is questioning the authenticity of my ban anymore, so that’s good to see. What I will say is that everyone who is talking about legal action is dreaming.
It will cost more in legal fees than all but the largest of whales could recover. Also the ToS outline an arbitration process that must be followed rather than a legal one, and we all agreed to this when accepting the EULA. In some jurisdictions, this part of the ToS is not valid, but in many around the world it is binding.
If the disgruntled are waiting for someone to take legal action, you’re waiting for someone who:
1. No longer wants to play anymore (because they would be banned as soon as they bring legal proceedings).
2. Lives in a jurisdiction where binding arbitration is not enforceable.
3. Has the resources and desire to pay for a legal team capable of bringing this to court (you would need legal counsel with international experience since this legal action likely could not originate from within the USA where binding arbitration has been allowed and is considered acceptable in most cases).
The cross-section of people that covers this is basically zero.
If you’re truly unhappy, stop giving them money. Stop ad-warping. Hell, stop playing the game. I can’t tell you how much better I feel since I’ve moved on. And with that note, this will be my last post in the forums here.
Good luck to everyone - whether you’re staying or going - we were all here originally because of our love for Trek. It makes me so sad that the game developer who is trusted as a steward for the Trek IP is so clearly anti-consumer. I think that’s why so many people are so frustrated. This company doesn’t display the same values as the characters from their game.
Be civil, be constructive, stand up for yourselves, and live long and prosper.
🖖🏼
At least in Europe, the European Comission offers an Online Dispute Service, which is free for customers. All companies who want to do business within the EU are forced to offer this as part of customer protection regulations. It only applies to EU customers.
To quote DB's own ToS (pretty at the bottom of the ToS):
The headline in their ToS is wrong though, you have to live within an EU country or in Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein to be able to use it.
Google take a 30% cut in the fees.
In the UK, and I guess the rest of Europe, my contract is with Google, and if I have a problem with a purchase, I go to the vendor first, which is Google. If Google want me to deal directly with their supplier (DB) then they will tell me.
If I buy a Bic pen from Amazon and it breaks as soon as I take it out the packet, then I go to Amazon for a refund, not Bic. There was a case a few years ago where Amazon were offering refunds on a game bought through them, when the owners of the game refused refunds.
Google's TOS trump DB's TOS for purchases made through Google. Consumer law trumps Google's TOS.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
DO NOT go for third party refunds (Apple/Google/Arbitration/etc) if you don't want to risk your account. It is a pretty bad idea to try to get refunds behind DB's back and it will most likely end up in a ban.
If you are having trouble with DB, contact DB support. If support doesn't help, ask for an escalation. If that doesn't help and it wasn't Shan answering, try to contact Shan.
Going a third party way can end up in your account getting banned. This might or might not be legally correct, this is depending on the specific case and specific jurisdiction you are living in, but it won't bring your account back.
If you are taking any other steps to get either some or all of your money back, you are taking the risk of losing your account. In most cases, even if it violated some domestic consumer protection laws, it won't be easy to get more to all money or your account back. It will take money (amount depending on your country) and lots of time, it can easily take a year or longer to get a court decision and you are always risking to lose the case.
If you don't want to play STT for any reason anymore, it is still no reason to try to get your money back. You knew what you were doing, you spent the money, you had fun while it lasted but you moved on. Be fair and leave DB it's money. You wouldn't ask a theater to get your money back after you watched it, even if you hated whatever you saw or ask a restaurant to get your money back the next day when the food went to the sewers.
If you really felt screwed for whatever reason, think about your next steps wisely and be aware that all steps you take might be a problem for your account. There might or might not be a violation of ToS, laws or whatever. But you are back to the points above.
And, under any circumstances, don't even think about any legal steps without proper legal advice. If you don't want to spend money for that, you have your answer since you don't want to take legal steps anyway. And NEVER EVER believe some random guys posting in some random forums legal stuff and make decisions based on this random stuff.
I do wonder if DB’s approaches are a little biased toward US methods? As someone else mentioned, in the UK (and probably many EU countries), customers are normally directed to the the company at point of sale (eg Apple, Google, Steam or Facebook in this case) for resolution.
In retail, we have manufacturer direct warranties and service lines, but that’s generally considered an ‘add-on’ to our consumer rights available from the place of purchase. Ie Its not a priority/preferred means of resolution.
This all means that DB have to play ball with whatever local laws are in place where they sell, overriding anything contradictory in the EULA/T&C’s.
But I also agree, it’s probably not worth testing the theory unless you want to risk a ban and/or a legal challenge.
I do wonder if DB’s approaches are a little biased toward US methods? As someone else mentioned, in the UK (and probably many EU countries), customers are normally directed to the the company at point of sale (eg Apple, Google, Steam or Facebook in this case) for resolution.
[/quote]
I am not sure where the purchase is considered to be made in this instance.
I am not sure about others but I make my purchases through the app. With only the money handled by Google etc.
The storefront is within the DB app. It would be different if the purchases were made directly via Google as DLA