I think the problem might involve people abusing the system to get back more than just what they thought they had lost from the event itself. If someone gets the huff and decides they want 3 months of purchases back because of one nerf, which DB has decided was in their rights, they might consider that a good reason to ban an account. They don't want people to get 3 months worth of free gear and continue playing just because they decided to act on other player's concerns over an 'over-powered' card.
Sure, grab back a tenner here and there if you feel cheated, but if they think you're trying to get back your money and keep the purchases without even letting them know you might want to ask what it is they think you're doing.
Sure, grab back a tenner here and there if you feel cheated, but if they think you're trying to get back your money and keep the purchases without even letting them know you might want to ask what it is they think you're doing.
I don’t think the attempts by CS to negotiate a partial refund help. It should just be a full and complete refund of all resources and cash used to obtain Polywater Yar, but from my own ticket and others I’ve seen they will only offer a small fraction in terms of shuttle boosts and some dil, not anything actually used from savings.
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.
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
I believe the principle is that the location where the sale occurred, is the location of the jurisdiction as well. And in cases of remote sales like these, it is the location of the consumer. The vendor dispatched the goods or services to your location, thus they are operating in your location.
The problem also with situations like these, is that the vendor often does not have any assets located in the jurisdiction of the dispute, and that court orders could likely be unenforceable.
Just another reason why going the legal route could be problematic. Our legal systems still haven't quite caught up to the internet age.
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.
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
I believe the principle is that the location where the sale occurred, is the location of the jurisdiction as well. And in cases of remote sales like these, it is the location of the consumer. The vendor dispatched the goods or services to your location, thus they are operating in your location.
The problem also with situations like these, is that the vendor often does not have any assets located in the jurisdiction of the dispute, and that court orders could likely be unenforceable.
Just another reason why going the legal route could be problematic. Our legal systems still haven't quite caught up to the internet age.
They could be banned from operating in a jurisdiction, (not saying it would happen) but.... It's not that hard to do. My state, before online gambling was legal here, actually attempted working with all the providers to block access to certain gaming sites from IP addresses originating here.
I think the problem might involve people abusing the system to get back more than just what they thought they had lost from the event itself. If someone gets the huff and decides they want 3 months of purchases back because of one nerf, which DB has decided was in their rights, they might consider that a good reason to ban an account. They don't want people to get 3 months worth of free gear and continue playing just because they decided to act on other player's concerns over an 'over-powered' card.
Not sure that is what happened with Jellico. If they'd rolled back several months worth of purchases, then fair enough, DB are more than justified.
On the other hand, if they'd just rolled back what they lost trying for Yar after DB dragging their heels, that's different and DB are out of order and Jellico should have lodged a complaint with Google.
Just as we're guests in DB's sandpit, they're guests in Apples/Googles/etc who in turn are guests in the jurisdiction they're operating in. There are rights and responsibilities on all levels.
While I am completely dissatisfied with the resolution and compensation I got, I had give up on the Yar issue. But this entire thread and what happened with @Captain Jellico makes me mad all over again.
I read it as him asking DB for a proper and satisfactory refund/compensation for Yar and when they refused (as they did in my case), he asked for a refund from Google/Apple. That got him banned. Skipping over all the legal discussion going on in the forum, even if DB is well withing its rights to do so, I do not think it is a proper and fair way for them to treat paying customers. If I were @Captain Jellico, I would escalate it will Apple/Google and ask for all purchases ever made on STT to be refunded. I know Apple does it automatically for 90 days, but you can request further refunds and they evaluate it on a case by case basis. The way DB has acted in this case, I think he will have a fair chance of getting everything back!!!
On the broader point, and as someone mentioned, I don't think legal action against DB is feasible or worth it in terms of time and money. Get serious!! We as players have basically 3 choices: (1) Put up with DB because we still enjoy parts of the game - thats what most of the whales do; (2) Curtail spending money and time on the game but still play on and off. Basically don't take it too seriously and just do some f2p; (3) Quit playing and if you still feel really cheated by DB ask Apple/Google for a full refund.
I went with (2). I still enjoy some aspects of the game and am in a great fleet. But the way DB has treated its customers, I will not spend any more on this game. I was never a whale and I doubt DB would loose any sleep over me not spending. But at least I will sleep better. Of course, this thread is making me think again - the way DB is treating its customers is frankly insulting and I am not sure if I am willing to "DEAL WITH IT" any longer.
Who knows, maybe DB will see this thread and ban my account anyway. At least that way, I don't have to make the decision. Silver linings and all!!!
I think the problem might involve people abusing the system to get back more than just what they thought they had lost from the event itself. If someone gets the huff and decides they want 3 months of purchases back because of one nerf, which DB has decided was in their rights, they might consider that a good reason to ban an account. They don't want people to get 3 months worth of free gear and continue playing just because they decided to act on other player's concerns over an 'over-powered' card.
Not sure that is what happened with Jellico. If they'd rolled back several months worth of purchases, then fair enough, DB are more than justified.
On the other hand, if they'd just rolled back what they lost trying for Yar after DB dragging their heels, that's different and DB are out of order and Jellico should have lodged a complaint with Google.
Just as we're guests in DB's sandpit, they're guests in Apples/Googles/etc who in turn are guests in the jurisdiction they're operating in. There are rights and responsibilities on all levels.
There were quite a few people who reported reaching out to Google/Apple that don't appear to have been impacted. I too was wondering if Jellico was one of the ones who reported rolling back several purchases that weren't related, because that absolutely changes my opinion of his banning. Banning him for reversing one charge is an abuse of power, banning for three months worth of charges that are unrelated to the incident is absolutely justified.
...I do not think it is a proper and fair way for them to treat paying customers...
If they are going around DB to get unapproved refunds, are they really paying customers anymore?
Depends. Are they getting everything refunded or just one purchase?
If you're a regular at a bar, but run out on the check one day because you didn't like the service, you're probably going to have an issue whenever you return.
There are a lot of unknowns here, since the story is one-sided.
...I do not think it is a proper and fair way for them to treat paying customers...
If they are going around DB to get unapproved refunds, are they really paying customers anymore?
This is just my opinion but if someone tries to work within the guidelines DB has laid out and don’t get a reasonable resolution from DB, then I think going to apple/google for a refund (for the purchase in question, not a full refund for every purchase they ever made) is a reasonable course of action for the player to take. The fact that so many players are dissatisfied with DB’s handling of of this situation just within this thread is evidence that DB’s “solution” to this issue isn’t reasonable.
This part is not my opinion, but a fact- if DB bans players for pursuing this course, they will never be paying customers again. That’s revenue streams they close permanently.
And if they do get banned under these circumstances, I don’t think asking apple/google for a full refund for ALL purchases is unreasonable either.
...I do not think it is a proper and fair way for them to treat paying customers...
If they are going around DB to get unapproved refunds, are they really paying customers anymore?
They weren’t unapproved, Apple must have authorised them. The purchase of the product is directly from Apple (and they take a hefty cut too). Jellico was a customer of Apple first, DB 2nd. If Apple get enough issues/requests for refunds they may decide to take it up with the developer.
The issue here is who decides what constitutes a full refund?
It certainly isn’t just the token amounts of dil or shuttle boosts that CS are offering for this problem. On the flip side, how would one convert 9,000 chrons (or whatever it took to FE Yar) back to a cash value? The 1250 chron packs at £9.99 each? Straight away that’s £72 and that only covers chrons.
And if they do get banned under these circumstances, I don’t think asking apple/google for a full refund for ALL purchases is unreasonable either.
I think I am going to have to disagree here. Trying to get a refund for the product that has been improperly changed is perfectly normal, trying to get refunds for every purchase as far back as you can go is a bit greedy. To extend the bar analogy from above, it would be like getting truly awful service once and trying to be refunded for 6 months of drinks as a result - you’ve already enjoyed those drinks and one instance of terrible service has no effect on previous purchases.
____
To those who would counter this example by saying that crew cards and ships purchased in-game a permanent assets...they aren’t. Any game that operates as a service - where the developer must maintain servers for continued operation - exists at the pleasure of said developer, whether it is a poorly-run mobile game or a AAA MMO run by a top-tier titan of the games industry.
I, for one, treat every game I pay for as a cost-per-hour-entertained proposition. It makes sense for a linear or open-world single-player game, where the up-front price divided by number of hours spent playing through the story and makes even more sense for a persistent online universe like STT. For example, I spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $200-250 on GTA V between the Xbox 360 version, Xbox One version, and a couple of Shark Cards that were on sale. I also put 150+ hours into the story and maybe that much again into multiplayer, so my cost per hour is somewhere from $0.65 to $1. I might be around $4 an hour here. Worse, but still great compared to some other forms of entertainment.
However the math works out, anything other than a specific incident that requires redress is something I treat as part of the cost of being entertained here. To ask for that money back due to one incident is to retroactively declare that every purchase I made was also tainted by some sort of malfeasance on DB’s part...which simply isn’t true. “But other CCGs can be sold off when you’re done with them”...but STT is not such a game and you aren’t going to get your money back unless you waste many times what you paid here on a real good lawyer.
DB’s EULA seems to suggest users may be banned for fraudulently seeking refunds. I don’t know the full story with Jellico but it sounded like he simply wanted a refund for Yar, which seems reasonable to me. As I illustrated with possible cost of chrons as an example, this could stack up to a number of large refunds which may at first glance look significant, but actually be realistic and not an attempt at fraud.
...I do not think it is a proper and fair way for them to treat paying customers...
If they are going around DB to get unapproved refunds, are they really paying customers anymore?
This is just my opinion but if someone tries to work within the guidelines DB has laid out and don’t get a reasonable resolution from DB, then I think going to apple/google for a refund (for the purchase in question, not a full refund for every purchase they ever made) is a reasonable course of action for the player to take. The fact that so many players are dissatisfied with DB’s handling of of this situation just within this thread is evidence that DB’s “solution” to this issue isn’t reasonable.
This part is not my opinion, but a fact- if DB bans players for pursuing this course, they will never be paying customers again. That’s revenue streams they close permanently.
And if they do get banned under these circumstances, I don’t think asking apple/google for a full refund for ALL purchases is unreasonable either.
Precisely. I put a caveat my post noting that my assumption is that he just asked for refund of the Yar related purchases. That is how I understood his post. And that is first tried to work with DB to get a reasonable solution. And DB response was go *****.
And if under these circumstances he gets banned, I stand by my view that it is reasonable for him to ask apple/google for a refund of ALL purchases.
And if they do get banned under these circumstances, I don’t think asking apple/google for a full refund for ALL purchases is unreasonable either.
I think I am going to have to disagree here. Trying to get a refund for the product that has been improperly changed is perfectly normal, trying to get refunds for every purchase as far back as you can go is a bit greedy. To extend the bar analogy from above, it would be like getting truly awful service once and trying to be refunded for 6 months of drinks as a result - you’ve already enjoyed those drinks and one instance of terrible service has no effect on previous purchases.
Ordinarily I would agree. But I think ALL refund is justified if DB escalated the issue and banned his account for the Yar refund. This is because DB is essentially depriving him of all the purchases he has made in the past - which is linked to his banned account. So its essentially DB taking back the things he purchased, not the other way around. And if DB decides to do so, its only fair that he gets his money back.
Comments
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
Sure, grab back a tenner here and there if you feel cheated, but if they think you're trying to get back your money and keep the purchases without even letting them know you might want to ask what it is they think you're doing.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
I don’t think the attempts by CS to negotiate a partial refund help. It should just be a full and complete refund of all resources and cash used to obtain Polywater Yar, but from my own ticket and others I’ve seen they will only offer a small fraction in terms of shuttle boosts and some dil, not anything actually used from savings.
There is only the USA, Canada, and Europe. The rest of the world doesn't exist for DB.
I believe the principle is that the location where the sale occurred, is the location of the jurisdiction as well. And in cases of remote sales like these, it is the location of the consumer. The vendor dispatched the goods or services to your location, thus they are operating in your location.
The problem also with situations like these, is that the vendor often does not have any assets located in the jurisdiction of the dispute, and that court orders could likely be unenforceable.
Just another reason why going the legal route could be problematic. Our legal systems still haven't quite caught up to the internet age.
They could be banned from operating in a jurisdiction, (not saying it would happen) but.... It's not that hard to do. My state, before online gambling was legal here, actually attempted working with all the providers to block access to certain gaming sites from IP addresses originating here.
Not sure that is what happened with Jellico. If they'd rolled back several months worth of purchases, then fair enough, DB are more than justified.
On the other hand, if they'd just rolled back what they lost trying for Yar after DB dragging their heels, that's different and DB are out of order and Jellico should have lodged a complaint with Google.
Just as we're guests in DB's sandpit, they're guests in Apples/Googles/etc who in turn are guests in the jurisdiction they're operating in. There are rights and responsibilities on all levels.
I read it as him asking DB for a proper and satisfactory refund/compensation for Yar and when they refused (as they did in my case), he asked for a refund from Google/Apple. That got him banned. Skipping over all the legal discussion going on in the forum, even if DB is well withing its rights to do so, I do not think it is a proper and fair way for them to treat paying customers. If I were @Captain Jellico, I would escalate it will Apple/Google and ask for all purchases ever made on STT to be refunded. I know Apple does it automatically for 90 days, but you can request further refunds and they evaluate it on a case by case basis. The way DB has acted in this case, I think he will have a fair chance of getting everything back!!!
On the broader point, and as someone mentioned, I don't think legal action against DB is feasible or worth it in terms of time and money. Get serious!! We as players have basically 3 choices: (1) Put up with DB because we still enjoy parts of the game - thats what most of the whales do; (2) Curtail spending money and time on the game but still play on and off. Basically don't take it too seriously and just do some f2p; (3) Quit playing and if you still feel really cheated by DB ask Apple/Google for a full refund.
I went with (2). I still enjoy some aspects of the game and am in a great fleet. But the way DB has treated its customers, I will not spend any more on this game. I was never a whale and I doubt DB would loose any sleep over me not spending. But at least I will sleep better. Of course, this thread is making me think again - the way DB is treating its customers is frankly insulting and I am not sure if I am willing to "DEAL WITH IT" any longer.
Who knows, maybe DB will see this thread and ban my account anyway. At least that way, I don't have to make the decision. Silver linings and all!!!
There were quite a few people who reported reaching out to Google/Apple that don't appear to have been impacted. I too was wondering if Jellico was one of the ones who reported rolling back several purchases that weren't related, because that absolutely changes my opinion of his banning. Banning him for reversing one charge is an abuse of power, banning for three months worth of charges that are unrelated to the incident is absolutely justified.
If they are going around DB to get unapproved refunds, are they really paying customers anymore?
Depends. Are they getting everything refunded or just one purchase?
If you're a regular at a bar, but run out on the check one day because you didn't like the service, you're probably going to have an issue whenever you return.
There are a lot of unknowns here, since the story is one-sided.
This is just my opinion but if someone tries to work within the guidelines DB has laid out and don’t get a reasonable resolution from DB, then I think going to apple/google for a refund (for the purchase in question, not a full refund for every purchase they ever made) is a reasonable course of action for the player to take. The fact that so many players are dissatisfied with DB’s handling of of this situation just within this thread is evidence that DB’s “solution” to this issue isn’t reasonable.
This part is not my opinion, but a fact- if DB bans players for pursuing this course, they will never be paying customers again. That’s revenue streams they close permanently.
And if they do get banned under these circumstances, I don’t think asking apple/google for a full refund for ALL purchases is unreasonable either.
They weren’t unapproved, Apple must have authorised them. The purchase of the product is directly from Apple (and they take a hefty cut too). Jellico was a customer of Apple first, DB 2nd. If Apple get enough issues/requests for refunds they may decide to take it up with the developer.
The issue here is who decides what constitutes a full refund?
It certainly isn’t just the token amounts of dil or shuttle boosts that CS are offering for this problem. On the flip side, how would one convert 9,000 chrons (or whatever it took to FE Yar) back to a cash value? The 1250 chron packs at £9.99 each? Straight away that’s £72 and that only covers chrons.
I think I am going to have to disagree here. Trying to get a refund for the product that has been improperly changed is perfectly normal, trying to get refunds for every purchase as far back as you can go is a bit greedy. To extend the bar analogy from above, it would be like getting truly awful service once and trying to be refunded for 6 months of drinks as a result - you’ve already enjoyed those drinks and one instance of terrible service has no effect on previous purchases.
____
To those who would counter this example by saying that crew cards and ships purchased in-game a permanent assets...they aren’t. Any game that operates as a service - where the developer must maintain servers for continued operation - exists at the pleasure of said developer, whether it is a poorly-run mobile game or a AAA MMO run by a top-tier titan of the games industry.
I, for one, treat every game I pay for as a cost-per-hour-entertained proposition. It makes sense for a linear or open-world single-player game, where the up-front price divided by number of hours spent playing through the story and makes even more sense for a persistent online universe like STT. For example, I spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $200-250 on GTA V between the Xbox 360 version, Xbox One version, and a couple of Shark Cards that were on sale. I also put 150+ hours into the story and maybe that much again into multiplayer, so my cost per hour is somewhere from $0.65 to $1. I might be around $4 an hour here. Worse, but still great compared to some other forms of entertainment.
However the math works out, anything other than a specific incident that requires redress is something I treat as part of the cost of being entertained here. To ask for that money back due to one incident is to retroactively declare that every purchase I made was also tainted by some sort of malfeasance on DB’s part...which simply isn’t true. “But other CCGs can be sold off when you’re done with them”...but STT is not such a game and you aren’t going to get your money back unless you waste many times what you paid here on a real good lawyer.
DB’s EULA seems to suggest users may be banned for fraudulently seeking refunds. I don’t know the full story with Jellico but it sounded like he simply wanted a refund for Yar, which seems reasonable to me. As I illustrated with possible cost of chrons as an example, this could stack up to a number of large refunds which may at first glance look significant, but actually be realistic and not an attempt at fraud.
Precisely. I put a caveat my post noting that my assumption is that he just asked for refund of the Yar related purchases. That is how I understood his post. And that is first tried to work with DB to get a reasonable solution. And DB response was go *****.
And if under these circumstances he gets banned, I stand by my view that it is reasonable for him to ask apple/google for a refund of ALL purchases.
Ordinarily I would agree. But I think ALL refund is justified if DB escalated the issue and banned his account for the Yar refund. This is because DB is essentially depriving him of all the purchases he has made in the past - which is linked to his banned account. So its essentially DB taking back the things he purchased, not the other way around. And if DB decides to do so, its only fair that he gets his money back.
If you have a specific question about our Terms of Service you can ask me or submit a ticket. Thank you.