Not the same thing, though. EHG isn’t asking you for a subscription (equivalent to your yearly fee) to play. A more appropriate example would be:
You buy a car, paid in full, up-front. They tell you that they plan future technologies (equivalent to expansions) to be added for free. (note the keyword “plan”, not guarantee).
Then they release propeller wings for cars and say it has to be paid.
EHG provided ‘you get the full experience with one payment’. Now you don’t.
Gonna explain the difference? Doesn’t matter if additions aren’t added or the full thing reduced. Makes no difference for the law either.
If you got the game through the kickstarter then you probably have a case for refunds of the kickstarter and MTX. At least as long as there weren’t any disclaimers stating things could change. I’m not sure THAT many would take advantage of refunds but some certainly would.
If you got the game elsewhere I’d say there isn’t really a case for a refund. But they should probably reward their whales (and dolphins?) in some way. People that wanted to support the studio and game and reasonably expected to never have to worry about expansions or P2W stuff in the store.
After Judds letter, I just don’t see how they can not charge for expansions when supporter packs and MTX didn’t work.
Even after, up to the point this change was announced.
The payment reason being the style of monetization is a huge aspect after all. You cannot simply change such things in a way which increases costs for a customer, only in a way which reduces them.
Excemptions apply as stated for inflation based cost increases. Like a subscription gradually going up, or the shelf-price.
But saying ‘we add another type of payment which we specifically stated we won’t do’ at any state is not legally allowed actually, at least not the EU. You bought into it because there would be no follow-up costs, that is your contract with the company.
I get the reasoning.
But saving your business you screwed up with methods that are unlawful is… well… simply not allowed.
If we could break the law solely because it would help us then that would be kinda odd 
It would only be unlawful with regard to the kickstarters, assuming they didn’t honor refunds. Hell they could make all expansions free to kickstarters and avoid that issue.
No one else would have a legal claim. But I’d understand if they didn’t want to buy expansions.
And I’m curious what promises are assumed by a company buying them long after the kickstarter.
1 Like
Honestly, I don’t think there’s a case here.
If EHG were to change it so that you now have to pay something else for a product you already bought (by adding a subscription, for example), then it might be reasons for a refund.
Changing it so you might have to pay for future content isn’t the same thing.
An expansion is a separate product which you can choose to buy or not. It’s not the same product as the base game. The game itself remains with the same pricing. You’ll still be able to play it even if you don’t buy the expansion.
If you order a steak in a restaurant medium rare and you get one delivered well-done, but you eat it anyway, you still have to pay for it.
Those people who played hundreds or thousands of hours after release when features that were announced on the kickstarter page were missing basically agreed to the changes.
The consumers got to consume the product. Implied-in-fact contract.
1 Like
Actually not quite true, but I get where that thought process is coming from.
After all the people not buying into the kickstarter wouldn’t theoretically know that this promise was made, right?
The issue with that is that the promise is a contractual guarantee and those have to be formally rescinded or they uphold until it’s done.
Rescinding it formally can be done by proclaiming ‘we will make a expansion which will cost money’… which… is absolutely fine!
The issue for the company though is that everyone buying into the product before the guarantee was rescinded has now a legal claim to free updates forever.
Yes, bad business strat, absolutely! A mistake, absolutely! Legally solid? Also absolutely.
Battlestate Games (Escape from Tarkov) had the exact same issue with their ‘Edge of Darkness’ edition. That one was ‘limited’ and included their ‘season pass’ which is the inclusion of all DLC.
Then Battlestate Games went along to make a SP-/Coop-Mode and wanted to charge money for it.
Not only did it piss of the playerbase massively but it also nearly led to a lawsuit against them as that’s not allowed.
The writing in the kickstarter is distinctly saying ‘You only need to pay once to get the full experience’ which includes any and all future updates, it’s saying the same as Battlestate Games did just in different words.
As for the ‘planned’… that is not applicable to the end of the paragraph there actually. The writing is formed in a way that it showcases the pricing range to be ‘the plan’ (which wasn’t managed to be fulfilled as it took too long anyway) and the follow-ups are hence once more a guarantee.
This wouldn’t be the case if it stated for example ‘trying to provide all future updates for free’, which is a option to get out of it. But they didn’t… hence they legally can’t in the EU at least.
Under US court it’ll very likely uphold though to be a non-binding clause.
Which is the case.
I bought Last Epoch as the full experience without having to pay anything beyond to be able to enjoy it in full.
If you provide a addition to the game then it wouldn’t be the full experience anymore, hence I have contractually a right to it.
This is the ‘reduction’ of value here. Sure, the actual value goes up for the product as it becomes more (potentially)… but it’s not allowed as I was promised that I have always access in full.
Can you play it without the base game?
If not it’s not a separate product. It’s like including a AC in a car when the stock has none included. You still have the same car, it just has a addition. You cannot use the AC without the car.
If you consume it. That’s a important aspect first of all.
That is not entirely true.
EHG never stated that LE wouldn’t get that content.
What EHG did was provide information of moving the release back here:
And here:
While the second one was a potential window to ask for refunds. (As it was postponed the second time)
Also both times the red flag of ‘recruiting additional staff’ already came up by the way. Just mentioning that on the side. Expansion during a pre-planned project before realization is generally a negative, not a positive.
EHG also showcased that they’ll rise the quality and revise all areas according to new standards here:
This has never been done actually, the rework was solely Act 1-3, Act 4-7 are still at the old standard.
In 0.7.9 The Monolith of Faith was introduced finally, which is the first of three promised end-game mechanics upon release. Which is a massive extra red flag actually, having only released a single one when 3 were told to be supplied.
And to Quote:
Going into 2021 we will be focusing on multiplayer, optimization, expanding our itemization and end game systems, polishing existing content, and launching 1.0.
Nothing pointed to the Kickstarter goals not being met by the terminology EHG used.
Multiplayer and expansion of itemization as well as end-game systems. The polish also wasn’t removed there and it also included 1.0. Which didn’t happen - again - in time. Third time postponed hence.
Following up was the start of the major downfall already with the announcement of 1.0 here:
Last Epoch’s 1.0 launch will mark a new beginning for Eterra, and will set a new bar for quality, polish, gameplay feel, and visual excellence. Beyond 1.0, Eleventh Hour Games will bring substantial new content to Last Epoch every few months in what we call “Cycles”. These releases will contain additions and refinements to many aspects of the game, such as end-game content, skills, unique items, gameplay systems, quality-of-life features, etc.
These words are problematic as well and also imply a few things officially.
First off: Quality rises further. Why? Nobody knows since the darn Acts 4-7 still haven’t been touched! So even further quality when they can’t even deliver the former level? Nonsensical… but ‘eh’ for most people.
What it clearly states though is that after 1.0 it’ll bring substantial amounts of new content every few months.
That’s clearly a broken promise, isn’t it? Also the promised kickstarter state isn’t yet instated.
Now people start to give lenience to EHG already. ‘Not done? Well, they’ll just add it post 1.0, let em cook!’.
That’s the goodwill they built up over time.
Now, as we see goodwill as 2 sides of the coin. If you have it people close both eyes at once and let you just do stuff, thinking you’ll do right. If you don’t have it then people are harsh and act immediately instead.
Here EHG didn’t faul because of goodwill, which also washed over to outsiders through word of mouth, hence the big release spike.
Does this excempt them from any legal guarantees they made? No… no it doesn’t, but it creates a window of action which is important and has passed afterwards.
But EHG did have lenience until the release date itself anyway. They’re open to do whatever and just provide people with the missing stuff then!
That’s only from the announcements as well, not even the ‘News’ section yet which is also filled with stuff.
The partnership with Tencent:
It became clear that as we gained traction and set our sights on a more ambitious game, that our growth would require more talent, hardware, software, and ultimately more funds.
This is a fallacy by design.
EHG here clearly states after gaining traction they expanded the scope of their project rather then providing the initial promises made in full first.
This can actually be a legal issue for them following up.
Also the statement combination of:
This investment does many wonderful things for EHG and Last Epoch, including:
* Ensuring our stability and growth as a studio for years to come
Is a clear-cut sign of mismanagement.
This was posted in 2022 and is a complete and utter lie in hindsight.
Not only hasn’t it provided stability or growth, it hasn’t even provided the ongoing existence.
That’s the company people are defending since Krafton’s acquisition. To be extremely precise… lying to hide uncomfortable truths and hence not enabling the community to support them towards success in a combined effort. Instead they hid it and hoped for the best, ill-advised.
It even doubles down again with:
So what does this ultimately all mean? Eleventh Hour Games is healthy. Healthier than ever, growing more rapidly, and excited as hell to put these funds to work in creating an amazing action RPG for all of us to enjoy.
Really now? Are they? Kinda a short timeframe to fail completely and having to sell out, wouldn’t you say?
And *still not an inkling of the promised content. But… we got some more things!
The roadmap:
1.0 was a successful disaster. Not only was half of the main selling point (the factions) utterly broken but also server issues. The second are excuseable, the first are not as it’s not been fixed as of date.
But EHG provided this lovely post for the roadmap as emotions were high, people calling them out left, right and center at the time.
What better way then to show what they’ll give us? Maybe something to be adequate instead of the missing 2 end-game mechanics?
And yes, there it goes actually! ‘Primal Hunt endgame events’, nice! That sounds large! So we have a whole mechanic around hunting something? Awesome, that can be a huge time-sink for people hence, finally something else for end-game as promised!
And we know how that ended.
The following one was weaver, which was provided earlier… procedural side zones? Count me in!
Nobody told us though it’s basically 1 layout used in 2 mechanics (tombs and cemeteries) and that’s it. EHG simply provided a huge chunk of effort with mediocre impact… rather then trying to have the least work with the most impact. A ongoing thing.
But one saving grace is still there… new endgame bosses, transmogrify system, dyes… ok… more character customization which wasn a stretch-goal we didn’t manage to get. Nice… how about providing the basis first?. But there’s a ‘beyond’ still, EHG postponed several times anyway, right? Just means it takes longer then expected.
Then the whole mess with the delay came. Then Krafton acquisition and now we’re here with a potentially paid expansion.
Lenience from the customers doesn’t excempt from legal responsibility. ‘But they played so much in the meanwhile!’ Yes… and? If I wait for an upgrade to my board-computer in my car since half the functions are missing and I drive the car in the meanwhile… does that mean I accepted to use a half-assed product? I still have the right to it nonetheless, and if the company then tells me ‘pay to get the remainder’ when I was lenient towards them I suddenly have a surprisingly solid legal situation at hand.
You keep ignoring the “The planned”-part of that paragraph because you want to. It goes for the whole pay model.
A court would have to decide if that is overall misleading in a greater context.
Escape from Tarkov sold the EoD edition that was more expensive than the standard edition. That would make an important difference in a potential lawsuit.
You can’t, but you can buy it without buying the game.
With your example, it would be like buying an AC system to be installed in a car, except you don’t have a car. That’s not the problem of the AC seller.
Which leads us to the other point I wanted to make. You already consumed LE. In fact, for hundreds or thousands of hours.
It’s the equivalent, going back to your car example which has a lifetime assistance provided and they decided to start charging it after you had it for 5 years.
You could ask for a refund, but you wouldn’t be likely to get it or, if you did, you’d only get a small fraction of the value for it. Even in court. And that is because you already consumed the product for over 5 years, taking value from it. At most a court might force the company to keep providing free assistance.
So, in this case, you’d likely not be able to get a refund at all when you’ve been consuming the product for years now.
Taking it to an extreme: if EHG decided that the game isn’t profitable at all and decided to shut down the studio and the servers, would you be entitled to a refund? As we’ve seen with many games where this exact situation happened, the answer would be no.
I included it with the statement that the paragraph is written as the monetary aspect directly being the ‘planned’ part, leading over to becoming a guarantee during the paragraph.
And yes, a court would need to decide if it’s a guarantee or not, but the chances are surprisingly good for it to be called misleading.
No, it’s just about the clause for all future DLC being included. If it’s for free or if it costs a million is not relevant under the law.
And you cannot order a car AC without owning the car?
Kinda odd I would argue
Same thing here, one is building upon the other. Basically what EHG sold is the ‘all inclusive premium edition’ with all of the possible stuff included. Now they backtrack realizing their all-inclusive package won’t make em enough money, after the sale happened.
Mostly the second. Not a full refund but a partial one if it’s a general refund, which we’re not talking about. We’re talking break of contract, which would be a full one unless EHG proves the percentile results in total being provided from the total… which is really hard but the burden of the company in that case.
But even if EHG looses 20% of their revenue suddenly it would break their neck, they don’t have the money after all.
Ah… here it’s a bit different though! The product was only partially delivered, not in full! And it’s also related to the shift in contract which is not in line with the initial deal. Hence it’s not time-based but percentile based.
Also time has no meaning for a product which has no reduction in value, which digital products fall under.
The time aspect is not relevant for software, never was actually.
If the product was delivered in full and a reliable amount of timeframe provided to enjoy said product then ‘no’.
Since we also have a offline mode the timeframe is irrelevant overall, as long as the MTX is provided.
If not, then ‘yes’. Legally they would need to file for bancrupty if push comes to shove.
You can. You can buy whatever you want. You can even buy an engine without having a car. Or buy wheels. Or a chasis. Or a car seat. Or a car stereo. They’re all the same. They’re for sale, you buy them if you want to, regardless of whether you’ll use them or not.
It’s not the seller’s responsibility to figure out if you’ll be able to use it or not.
Still not quite the same thing, though. It’s a separate product, even if it’s dependent on the main product to be used.
It would be like if they said they would never release an expansion and then they decided to release it. The product you bought still does what it did when you bought it.
It would be like, to return to the car metaphor, if BMW said they would never create wings for cars, so you bought a BMW. You used it for 5 years and then they made wings for cars which you could buy separately. You’d be arguing for a refund and you’d not be likely to get it.
At most you’d get a refund from the kickstarter amount, that’s all.
You wouldn’t get a refund for any MTX you bought, since those weren’t part of the contract and were something you decided to buy and consume.
And, again, because you’ve already consumed the product from several years and got your money’s worth out of it, it’s not likely you’d get the full amount.
Digital products also lose value over time. Just look at the price of a 10 year old game and watch its evolution going down all the time.
Or a game you bought 10 years ago that won’t even run today without an emulator.
What is “a reliable amount of timeframe”? That is a very generic statement.
All in all, it could always be argued that you getting thousands of hours of enjoyment consuming the product you did was already way more than what you paid for and that you already got your money’s worth out of it.
After all, if not having the “full product” was such a big deal to you, then you wouldn’t have “wasted” so many hours consuming it.
Ultimately, you could try filling a lawsuit for a refund. But you wouldn’t likely succeed here. And at most you’d get a small percentage back of the kickstarter amount, nothing else.
Now, that being said, it sucks if they actually do go back on their word. It means that nothing is off the table, including the possibility of future P2W.
I don’t think so. The only ones with a written contract stating those terms were kickstarters. They gave money and got what seems to be a pretty clear promise by EHG.
Star Citizen had to offer refunds for people when the community voted in favor of CIG expanding the scope of the kickstarted project. Although they seemed to give it a time limited response. I believe they refunded the kickstarted amount plus ships purchased before the refund was requested.
100% true!
It becomes it though when you own the base product of whatever kind and this one becomes problematic!
It’s the reason for buying into something. So if the base product changes to something else (contractually or in functionality) there is actually a legal basis at times. It’s leaning into the misleading business practices.
Why?
Because misleading business practices are coined as the situation changing which initially caused the payment, hence not applying anymore and taking away that initial reasoning, which is depending on circumstances a cause for a refund. Depending on severty even more then a refund.
See above, misleading business practices.
It’s hard to compare it to a physical object as the distinct reasoning isn’t quite the same why it would apply. The core premise thought upholds.
Which also is not inherently true.
It’s the most likely outcome, yes. But it can also include return of MTX, return of the expansion price (which wouldn’t apply here though) and even remuneration for expedited effort to get the refund through legal means.
Excluding the MTX is not a guarantee anymore. It basically was before - I think a few years ago by now - the precedence of this being an issue was brought up, since then the legal standing for MTX being separate isn’t quite as strong anymore.
Also not true.
Describe what ‘the money’s worth’ is.
It’s dependant on the percentile of completion as well as the premise which has been bought into the product.
For example if a court decides that a expansion will reduce the total amount of content available to a vastly lower number (let’s say 60% for example) then the chance for a full refund as the difference is large enough this way could be a possibility rather then a partial one.
But a partial one is always on the table should a paid expansion happen.
The value of the data hasn’t declined, it’s a pure marketing strategy to ensure revenue flows for as long as possible in the long-term. It’s not like a car which actively looses value as the material ages and becomes less reliable and less efficient even when not used.
Look for example at Factorio, that game has never had a single price reduction happening since release. That was in 2016.
Just because the sector does have a inclination to copy physical goods strategies doesn’t mean they’re a mandatory aspect… unlike physical goods.
It is, but that’s the current legal framework. There is no distinct amount given.
And that was never rescinded hence by EU law any person buying into LE goes into the contract with the information provided back during kickstarter already.
That’s why crowdfunding in the EU is such a risky business. Do something wrong early on and you’re screwed contractually.
Yes, but a refund was given.
If the time limitation upholds though is up to a court.
But that it exists has to be a given legally… they did well in that regard.
I mean… if even Scam Citizen manages it I would argue other companies should be held under a similar standard. Legally it’s a field though which isn’t fully stabilized yet… but the EU gets ever harsher in those regards. The digital fairness Act and now the stop killing games initiative (which is one of less then 10% of the total initiatives which actually passed) the customer protection in the EU becomes ever more solid while hitting down on long-standing issues of the industry.
It doesn’t. If I want to buy an iphone accessory and I don’t have an iphone, Apple has no obligation to check if I have one before I buy it or not.
If you played any game for thousands of hours and paid less than a hundred bucks, then you got your money’s worth.
If you weren’t enjoying the game, you wouldn’t have played thousands of hours. Therefore the game offered you enjoyment for thousands of hours. And for a much lower price than most other games of a similar production cost.
That is because Factorio barely has any competition. Games tend to lose value when a better game (meaning, more popular) is released, since they can’t compete with a similar price tag.
Likewise when they release a sequel to the game. The previous game has to go down in price, since barely any player will buy the first game if it’s the same price as the second.
Exceptions exist, but they’re exactly that: exceptions. They’re not the general rule.
Also, as technology advances, older games become sometimes unplayable in modern machines. That also counts as data losing value.
I think the thing you’re overlooking here is that: yes, the EU has a lot of laws protecting the consumer. But it also has as many, if not more, protecting companies. Otherwise people would be trying to scam companies all the time, like they do in the US.
If someone in Europe goes to a Starbucks and burns their mouth because the cofee was too hot, they’re not entitled to compensation. They’re just dumb and should have waited for it to cool down.
Likewise, if a car has cruise control and someone goes to the back seat because they think the car drives itself (something they can’t do even with self driving cars, btw), then they’re not entitled to compensation and a brand new car (and yes, this is an actual thing that happened in the US). In fact, in this case, they’d probably get charged with wreckless driving or criminal negligence if someone else was hurt.
And if someone decides to place their cat in a microwave, they’re also not entitled to compensation. Again, they’d likely be charged with something or other.
In this case, if you’ve enjoyed a product for thousands of hours, which is was more than the time anyone enjoys the vast majority of games, it could be argued that you already got what you paid for.
I think that, at most, you might have a case to make EHG give you the expansion for free. I doubt you’d get much more out of it. And that would probably not be worth the time and expanses that came of it.
And yes, I know that if you win the case the losing party pays for the court costs. But that doesn’t cover the days you had to skip work to attend court. Although you seem to live in a utopia, so maybe you get paid in these cases anyway.
If you pre-order a iphone case though before the new iphone version is out and then apple decides to change the size of the iphone you absolutely have a right for refunding in the EU.
By which definition?
I get what you mean.
But by which legal definition? 
Really?
Satisfactory, Shapez, Mindustry, Dyson Sphere Program, Foundry, Techtonica, Infinifactory, Riftbreaker and a bazillion of smaller style indie games.
Barely any competition, mhmm…
Oh? Is that the case?
I would argue the opposite… emulators exist and do a top-tier job. Also simulated DOS environment or older windows versions being emulated works absolutely fine.
Preservation of old titles works, preservation of new ones doesn’t, majorly in the life-service sector actually, for obvious reasons.
And you think that doesn’t happen? It’s just that EU laywers are not US laywers. Here you need to have proof of fault of some kind, not spin something together and hope for a jury - as example - to see it your way. It’s a more rigid system here simply, for both sides.
As someone working at an insurance company for a while I can absolutely tell you ‘yes, people do think they’re in the right, up until the laywer tells them they’re not’. Laywers are commonly paid by the hour or with a flat fee rate rather then percentage contingencies like in the US is rather common. Also they’re commonly aligned with several insurance companies to get their customers, which stops quite quickly if they don’t provide positive results unless a contract mandates a laywer being supplied (even for a known loosing case).
Comparison still doesn’t apply by law, no matter how much you repeat it like a broken record.
It’s based primarily on the state of completion as demanded in the contract, not how heavy the use-rate is. It does play a role but isn’t the primary pointer nonetheless.
First of all… this wouldn’t be a individual case but a ‘you didn’t uphold a contract for a ton of people, you have to offer a refund’ situation. That means no individual there, only representing laywers talking it out with the judge. It’s unlikely you personally would be ordered to court to testify something.
Secondly, in the majority of EU countries you’re excempt from work-days if you’ve got to do a testimony. You don’t even have to tell an employer before taking a new job in several countries. But that’s one the side here and a social topic, not the topic of the game here.
Thirdly, if you need to invest a substantial amount of time and win then commonly reimbursement for the time investment is mandated from the court. But that’s also besides the point here.
Fourth, by EU law any witness is entitled to compensation for expenses and lost earnings when summoned to court, even if the amount varies by country. Travel and accomodation can nigh always be reimbursed. Income partially and it’s highly dependant.
This is handled this way to not cause undue issues for anyone attending court as defending your rights is a quite important aspect in the EU.
Logged in after a year away to say I’m still disappointed at the state of class balance and releasing new content continues to be the bigger priority regardless if it’s paid or not. The expansion to me is a net negative with the current state of the base game. Mastery balance and new end game systems need to be the building blocks an expansion is based on, not bringing to us.
I foolishly thought it would take them 12-15 months to rectify this but we’ve only made it to 1.3 and not 1.5? Sheesh. I’ve lost faith that they can deliver a finished product but I’m also a Swarmblade and Spellblade player, stepped on and forgotten.
The principle of implied-in-fact contract.
By playing the game for that amount of time, you signal that you are fine with the product you got.
You say they said all content will be free forever, they could say we left the door open to change the payment model because we disclosed risks and only stated it as the planned model. Later on, in the official FAQ, EHG even strengthened the wording that this is the current plan, and that they intend to keep it.
I see both possibilities that it would be considered misleading or not, depending on the judge, all evidence given, case law, etc.
And even if it was considered mildly misleading, a judge could still rule that under proportionate action, a paid expansion as an adapted business model was a reasonable decision that in this case outweighs the consumer’s right to a lifetime of free expansions, as stopping business would actually be more harmful for ongoing consumers of the product and the employees.
A lot would be dependent if EHG can prove that their statements were transparent and in good faith and not designed to mislead the consumers.
That would need to be proven. And this statement is not a legally protected opinion - this borders, if you ask me, on STGB §186.
1 Like
By “buying into” I’m assuming you mean into the kickstarter? If you are claiming anyone that bought outside of the kickstarter I frankly don’t believe you as there was no contract with those terms. And I doubt you could find an example to back the claim.
Regardless, Krafton will know what the financial impact will be either way.
Are any of those games better (meaning more popular)? No? Then it has no competition.
It’s like saying that CS2 has competition when it’s the bettter game by a million concurrent players. Or Fortnite. Or Fifa. Or any of the others that are the better (more popular) games in their genre.
Factorio has a lot of pretenders to the throne, but no real competition so far. So they have no need to change their price tag.
Those require an external software and knowledge on how they work and that they even exist, which most players won’t know.
So the real world scenario is that most people will have the digital files for a game they won’t be able to run.
There are lots of older games that were also live service and that also died in the meantime. Same for MMOs. Those are all useless data by now. So they lost 100% of their value.
I don’t know why you’re arguing this. If your game data doesn’t even work anymore, or if it used to simply run the game directly but now requires you to set up an emulator or a VM, then it lost value. Sometimes even all of it.
You are exempt, meaning you can’t be fired as if you simply missed work. But you don’t get paid for that day.
It can. Once the case is over and the other party deemed guilty. Which can take years in some cases. Until then, expenses are from your own pocket.
Why do you think people with low income will often just not pursue legal disputes? Because they can’t afford the expenses they’ll incur before the case is over.
And with Krafton now being the owners of EHG, you can certainly expect they have top notch lawyers that can drag this on for years.
1 Like