What i said is not false. If any company that is outside of the use chooses to do business within the united states they have to follow our consumer laws and rights. Doeent matter if krafton is south Korean company.
Iv already dealt with a company not a game company that is outside of the USA yrs ago for not giving me what i was told i would get for buying thier product. In the end i got what i was told my money got me.
USA consumer laws and writes dont magically not apply because a said business is outside of the USA. Further more iv already been in contact with a consumer law and writes lawyer on this. They did state my consumer writes still apply since they are doing business within the USA.
I do have a case here if they do decide to charge for the expansion. I wouldnt be waisting my time nor money if what i said is in fact false. Currently my lawyer and i are playing the waiting game since we dont know for sure yet if it will be a paid expansion.
Heres this for u.
Selling products or services to U.S. consumers: Foreign companies must comply with U.S. laws regarding advertising, product safety, and labeling when they sell goods or services to consumers in the United States
They advertised all future content is free that includes expansions. Which also means they must give u exactly what the advertised u would get. Even a company outside of the USA has to follow our advertisement laws.
If they charge for the expansion they will have then broken our law on advertisement. Not giving what an advertisement says u get is illegal including companies that do business in our country even tho they are based outside of the USA.
So no what i said is in fact not false
Take note on what im focusing on here which is advertising. Of which yes EHG did many many many tikes state all future content will be free. It also says this in different wording in thier kickstarter. ( which is still up btw and i showed that to my lawyer. Soon as he saw it he said based on this if they do charge for the expansion. Thats no longer a one time payment for the full LE experience) Advertising is one of the consumer laws and writes (to get what was advertised). That in fact does apply to anyone that does sell a product or service with in the USA whether they are based in the USA or not. Being outside of the US doesnt give that company leeway to not abide by our advertising laws and writes to get what i was told my money gets me
It does make them harder to enforce (as a customer though), especially if itâs for a digital product/service. Plus thereâs the cost of enforcing it (though obviously that counts for local stuff as well) & potentially language issues as well.
In the EU itâs easier since thereâs a baseline demand of âif you offer your services in any way for a EU citizen you have to comply with EU consumer lawsâ for business related over the web.
Thatâs for example a interesting thing related to gambling sites as Iâve found out a short while ago. If you use one of the gambling sites which are not officially allowed in your country then you have the right to be reimbursed completely for any losses you make there. Kinda harsh given that you can keep winnings⌠but canât get losses. A way to ruin illegal gambling sites I would argue which works relatively well
But that was just besides the point, simply about âEU citizens have surprisingly strong customer rights⌠if they know that they have em at least.â
In the EU the consumer services are free in that regard, every country has a service center related to that which is entirely free to use for citizens. Itâs not you as a individual which sues but instead that center does it to uphold the consumer law properly.
As said âif you know it exists you have a lot of power to enforce your rightsâ⌠but⌠you gotta know it exists
In the UK thereâs the small claims court which has fees of ÂŁ35-ÂŁ455 for claims up to ÂŁ10k, then 5% up to ÂŁ200k & ÂŁ10k for a claim over that value.
Several countries were. But there is only one which still has those issues while all the others are enforced to follow those guidelines since theyâre a part of it. Doesnât mean other issues donât exist, just âthat oneâ doesnât.
What weâre talking about is âmarket accessâ and to have the legal position to do that you have to adhere to the law of the related country, otherwise youâre barred from access.
And since the vast majority of countries have a legal exchange ongoing (with a few exceptions, but EU, UK, US absolutely do) this means if you forego the legal framework your country will throw you under the bus as otherwise youâll get hit with trade penalties and tariffs.
Actually no. Depending on which framework of law weâre talking about. What you depict as âadvertismentâ and what in other countries lawfully is decided to be such can be entirely different. Your own perception and that of your country is utterly useless unless you inform yourself about the respective country that comment stems from.
In this case we have the US.
So in this case you need to look at the âSecurities and Exchange Comissionsâ (SEC) which depicts guidelines for advertisment.
Under general US law crowdfindung with securities and/or offerings - here we have âofferingsâ as you get a exchange of goods, money versus access - is regulated under a framework in law.
For comanies the demands are regulated under the âRegulation Crowdfundingâ (Reg CF) with the so called âForm Câ having to be filled out and all regulations according to that being complied to.
Under US law then further on the regulations stipulate the type of crowdfunding happening. EHG for example did a so-called âreward based modelâ for that. Hence all laws regarding the âreward based modelâ apply.
Then we can go into the specific applying aspects. In the case of the US: the campaign page itself, including all descriptions, promises and details about the good being exchanged are considered as advertising and hence underly the legal framework of how advertisting is to be handled.
So there is how we get to the advertisting part itself.
Then further on the US law states under the section for âAdvertising and Marketingâ at the âFederal Trade Comissionâ (FTC) which is lawful and which is not.
The specific statement is the âFTC Actâ which needs to be followed.
Under Section 5/1 it is stated that: âUnfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.â
Now we get into the next segment, which is âunfair or deceptive acts or practicesâ and the definition of that.
To be specific here the detailed description for what constitutes such a practice is: **âAny miscrepresentation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead a consumer, is material to their decision and can be reasonably interpreted as misleadingâ.
That is the exact legal basis under US law to be clear. And Iâm a EU citizen, so why the heck do I have the capacity to provide that all in less then 10 minutes of searching through âfriend Googleâ with the legal documents right at hand despite not knowing shit about the legal framework of the US itself?
How exactly a court in the US will depict this reasonably interpreted aspect is up for discussion. But it cannot be denied that âweâll provide full access to the product foreverâ is very material to the decision of buying the product now, isnât it?
So the legal basis for a case is there. The decision is just not guaranteed to be in anyoneâs favor.
The likelyhood of precedence - which is a big thing in the US - is very high though, hence that specific aspect being fixated is a likely outcome.
Counter argument, you still have access to the product you paid for. Also nobody guarantees anything going forward forever. Your concept of section 5/1 doesnât really apply here unfortunately. They arenât breaking any laws. This would most likely fall under invitation to treat. They advertised something you accepted, you got what you paid for. It doesnât matter that the pricing changes anywhere down the line; basic commerce is protected by this right otherwise stores in general wouldnât ever be allowed to change the prices for any reason. Youâd be very hard pressed to prove you were coerced in any way into purchasing the game. Unfortunately for everything the same principles apply: buyer beware.
Payment was made.
Principle of the reasoning beyond the payment might not be upheld.
Hence it applies.
Because:
Is a factually wrong statement.
Since that specific aspect is clear-cut. âLikely to misleadâ does not need fixed language, it needs only language which is suggestive.
The only aspect which can be argued about actually is âreasonably interpreted as misleadingâ. If that notion is âreasonableâ enough is in the US to be decided by a jury as much as I know.
Once more, factually wrong.
If your payment is based on the type of product and would only happen with specifics implemented then you have a legal basis for it when that specific is removed henceforward.
This is actually identical both in the US and the EU in that regard. More enforced in the EU though given thereâs a free service available defending that specific aspect of the law to citizens.
Oh, but itâs not about the pricing. Itâs about the advertisment being misleading.
The contract for a private customer can be interpreted as: âWhen we manage to release this product then youâll be provided indefinitely with functionally everything this product will ever provide at any timefrime.â
So that aspect is open about discussion.
Price-changes related to initial payment are irrelevant anyway, that part is already fulfilled contractually, you personally paid, anyone following can pay a different price as the direct payment is inherent for the agreement of service in that case. So you agreed to the price-tag itself.
Exactly!
And not the topic which is even talked about.
This is not about pricing
And that on the other hand is the big big thing which actually has a very reasonable standing.
Act 5/1 as mentioned. Advertising. Which stated âfull game access foreverâ. Obviously in reason, which is online access being shut down when support ends, offline access indefinitely until you turn to friggin dust.
Well unfortunately for your argument, not buying the expansion doesnât prevent you from playing the game that you bought.
Invitation to treat Iâll do my best to summarize because itâs rather obtuse. As a example letâs say you get an advertisement saying you can buy a new computer for $100 from company X. You go there and they either A) donât have any more or B) simply choose not to honor the coupon for any reason. Guess what, they are protected from being sued for these practices because they are simply offering the right to buy their product. In a very round about way they are offering you a product at a price, and you either accept it or donât. whether you do or donât buy it, youâre considered to have both settled on the outcome.
t gets really icky with things that arenât one off, such as a live service game, but in this case you chose to buy it based on a promise they put forward, so you feel entitled to them sticking to it which is fair. But they A) are owned by a new company and as such are subject to the rules that company puts out, and B) you were free not to buy the game until they had followed through with their promise but you didnât. It sucks but thereâs no laws that are broken here.
I know why you would think there are but honestly I wouldnât hold my breath for a class action or anything of the sort. Can you imagine all the game companies that could be sued for getting one detail wrong of released content? If you try to apply the same logic to every single circumstance youâll see why thereâs a law that basically protects the companies from frivolous lawsuits such as âthey said something and they didnât keep their word.â
It breaks the declaration of âone time payment, provided the full experienceâ though.
Hence it breaks the legal basis under which the mututally beneficial contract was closed.
You cannot go back on a contract after closing it, no matter the circumstances. You can provide the other party leeway to your liking, but if you want to make your right known you absolutely can.
And plainly spoken⌠with the things happening in the last 1 1/2 years on the gaming market and how customer protection is going forward? Itâs not that unlikely anymore that it would be seen as âreasonableâ to demand a refund for breach of contract.
This is especially the case since during kickstarter up until release nothing was ever disclosed about the premise changing, hence with release the initial kickstarter contract is to be fully fulfilled or legal options become open. Itâs simply a move from EHG which is backfiring as they did it prematurely, werenât established properly when they did and now have to face the consequences for their mismanagement.
Neither A) nur B) apply in this case.
Both would mandate no contract is made, hence no contractual obligations.
The only obligation a seller has is to actually hand out their stock unless a specific - and very narrow bandwith of those - reason is given why that didnât happen. Even withholding products is illegal if a public advertisment is made.
At least if thatâs the same in the US as the EU. Not going to look into details here.
Base premise:
No contract was made yet.
Yep.
Not applicable anyway.
We got situation C) here though.
C) The PC comes with a guarantee of a life-long license to the newest antivirus software package. After several years the seller suddenly says âNo, you wonât get the next upgrade, but you can use it in the state it is now going forwardâ.
This is a direct and clear-cut breach of contract actually.
Money exchanged hands.
Contract was started.
Content of contract is not upheld.
The only reason EHG could potentially get out of it is the ambigious wording used in the kickstarter.
And even that is up for discussion at court worst-case.
Actually no. Outside of a few distinct examples - like service uptime for a indefinite license - there is no ambiguity in law. Licenses are nigh identical - with some extra aspects and exceptions - to goods if theyâre provided at a indefinite timeframe.
And as a rental if not.
Chance of company doesnât allow change of contracts.
Just because you acquire a house you cannot remove a tenant if the tenant has a contract stating theyâre allowed to stay in that place with only index based increases (inflation level hence) in rent, unless a severe neglegence of some sort happens.
Yeah, youâre now the owner of the building, hurray! You cannot demolish it, you have to wait until the tenant willingly moves out or bites the dust.
This has also no legal basis, what you stated there is legally bogus.
If you try to make a crowdfunding which is reward-based and act in this way youâre going to land in jail worst-case. Wouldnât be the first one either. Both in the EU and in the US.
The second someone pays into a reward based crowdfunding it is a legally binding contract. Both in the US and in the EU. Anywhere else? Dunno. In those 2 legislative areas it is.
Actually there potentially are.
Misleading business practices to be exact.
Sure, US, law, expensive, legal process is a mess as well.
Iâm more looking towards the EU here, which doesnât have this whole stuff. Itâs free for citizens to relay this over to customer protections, customer protections are free of use for any EU citizen.
They actually do a decent job upholding customers rights as well because the sheer quantity of cases they handle and the respectively miniscule costs of legal practitioners make it a net-positive sum even if they handle cases about local stores wrongly advertising friggin chewing gum.
No sane company wants to mess with EU customer protection. And since the EU customer protections laws are even more stringent then the one from the US - and as we see a potential case is even there applicable - we have a reasonable situation happening that a paid expansion would cause a legal procedure as a follow-up.
The most likely outcomes would be the following there actually:
-A good chance nothing is done as itâs deemed ambigious enough to not be reasonable to expect it being upheld.
-A rather immense fine which EHG is in no position to pay. Thatâs included with all other outcomes.
-A full-scale excemption for every EU-based customer has to be done up to a official declaration of the expansion being paid (the exact day and time) to give them free access forever and for all following expansions no matter the cost, the size or the timeframe.
-A full reimbursement for all EU-based citizens should they opt-in to get one in a specific timeframe, for every single EU-based customer. It could be solely the base game⌠or likely by now also including any and all paid MTX even.
-Partial refunds, either play-time based, acquisition time based or some other framework which would be designed around this, rather unlikely.
-A barring from business in the EU-Area, completely. Also extremely unlikely since they would be smacked into oblivion in the US as well in such a case.
Yes
Welcome to any other business sector actually!
Welcome to the world of contracts!
Entertainment is the only sector which has such nonsensical actions. Why? Because people usually donât bother going the extra mile there since they use entertainment to get away from responsibilities and use them as a time of recuperation. Hence the chance for action is simply lower then in many other segments.
Thatâs called either fraud or being misleading. And itâs a part of law.
Imagine a company being able to say âAâ and do âBâ and it not being a problem
You know how you can avoid that? You donât put things into your advertisment which youâre not sure you can deliver.
Heck⌠nowadays even deadlines are legally binding. The 2020 release date provided by EHG in their kickstarter in 2018 would legally be only allowed to be changed once by now in the EU, and only for a maximum of 6 months without having to open the option for full refunds.
Itâs going to get more stringent, and itâs starting to show a turning point in the ambiguity which companies got used to in the gaming sector.
I know you want contract law to work that way but very unfortunately it does not. Whether you want to ignore invitation to treat or not, it still goes forward. Option C of lifelong antivirus again comes with the problem of you bought the computer for the price they listed. What if the company goes under, or the company they were to get the antivirus software from doesnât deliver or go under? What about the people who donât even care about the antivirus? Itâs not meant to be a direct analogy to this case but an example of how invitation to treat works. They invited you to buy their product, you did. End of statement.
If the actions of the company would bankrupt the company, it would stand to reason that that company may simply choose not to go forward with those actions. But itâs unfair to me you might think but so what? In a situation where you didnât receive any product you have a case. In this you do not because you got a product and had your 2 weeks to refund it if you felt it didnât hold up to what was advertised.
Also if you buy the lease on a house, you absolutely can evict the current tenant. What a super weird example. You literally legally have the ability to have a person on your properties removed. When a company acquired another company, then they unquestionably have the right to do whatever they want with it. They could dissolve the company before they even ship out product if they wanted to., regardless if what the company promised to release.
âThe planned pay model for Last Epoch upon release is for the game to be free to all players until level 20 with restrictions on player interaction in order to deter spamming. To advance beyond level 20, players may spend $14.99 to unlock the rest of the gameâs content and full social features! These restrictions on free players will go a long way to deter spam and botting accounts, which will help keep the gameâs community and economy healthy. This one-time payment will be all that a player will have to spend to have the complete Last Epoch experience and be on the same footing as other players.â
Right off the kickstarter. The kickstarter also says 5 classes with 10 total masteries, but thatâs not true now is it? Also the one-time payment is mentioned in a paragraph when the subject of the payment is clearly the account unlock that doesnât even exist in the game as that system isnât at all the one on release. You didnât complain then, you âcontractuallyâ donât have a reason to complain now. You bought the game for more than they stated and you enjoyed itâs use to this point without arguing that they stated a ftp option which doesnât exist and for a higher price than stated. Like I said, invitation to treat, they invited you to partake in their game, you paid the new price, you and the company have reached an agreement. Thatâs your contract.
The premise is âa update comes but youâre not provided with itâ.
So obviously not applicable either.
EHG exists. When a expansion comes out EHG will still exist⌠since otherwise no expansion can come out. Hence there is suddenly a case.
I dunno how you get through those extra steps you take there, but theyâre not related to the quite clear-cut and narrow aspect related to law. Itâs simply a thing up to court if it happens, and itâs up to individuals if itâll go to court. A case is present when it happens.
No plaintiff⌠no judge.
If thereâs a plaintiff then thereâs a judge though
Doesnât change a case existing. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make sound?
False. Factually wrong is basically every country world-wide even. Donât know many where it would apply.
So you wanna tell me that when you buy a license to a product for 5 years stating you get all the updates⌠and they stop providing you that after 4 years⌠thatâs legal?
I mean⌠Iâm no laywer, but heck, even my little niece does know this is not the case
Iâm a carpenter though. So you wanna tell me when a customer buys a shelf + installation from me on the premise that I come over in the future and add drawers to it in the future free of charge⌠I can just ignore the calls when those drawers are asked for?
Wow⌠youâre literally begging for fraud charges. Donât own a business, heavy recommendation from my side.
And donât let yourself get scammed so easily.
Irrelevant.
Contractual obligations donât care about circumstances. Either you provide as you promised it or you go bancrupt. Welcome to business. Nobody gives a shit.
Imagine me promising to make a full-scale wooden interior with detailed inlays, decorations everywhere, top-end quality wood⌠and half-way through I tell my customer âsorry mate, canât work on, would get bancrupt if I do! Better luck next time, see ya!â
Welcome to law. Law is there to enforce fair treatment, no matter the cost for the individual or company.
Yep.
And in that case I didnât receive the promised product regarding the kickstarter, bar the ambigious wording which is up for discussion, in a legal court
The statement is âone payment, full experience, no more payments neededâ.
Kinda not the case if a paid expansion comes out, would break that, wouldnât it? So obviously - if no ambigious wording were used - I would have a legal right to this expansion, for free. As contract states. Otherwise my product is not provided.
You see, if I buy a car which states âall options and any future ones applicable to this car modelâ then I can bring my car to the mechanic every time they offer a new gadget on the market, free of charge.
Why?
Cause I fucking paid for that.
Same with LE.
People fucking paid for that.
Factually wrong again.
Otherwise this would cause a massive door to open about fraudulent business.
âWeâll provide the clauses related to your purchase in 15 daysâ whooops⌠after 14 days. Initial product received, no legal cause anymore, timeframe passed, right?
Nope, not how it goes. Actually legally there is no individual timelimit stated. And thatâs for a reason in those cases. People which come 40 years after the fact can make their legal rights known, and if a judge decides âyeah, thatâs actually not right what happenedâ they can still grant the refund, 40 years in the future.
Timeframe is of no matter, value becomes relative to individual situation. As long as the company is active and provides the respective service still then they are obligated to fulfill their contractual obligations.
Thereâs only 2 options to stop that:
-Go bancrupt
-Stop service
And EHG cannot even stop service since theyâve not even fulfilled their kickstarter contractual obligations yet fully, hence shutting down without bancrupty would also provide a legal case with a potential outcome which would be a full or - more likely in that case - partial refund.
If you acquire a contract youâre enforced to uphold said contract.
Once more, thatâs law 101, absolute basics.
What do you think would happen with contracts otherwise? Sure, I promise you the world! Ah⌠Iâll now sell the contract to some random person. Whoops⌠now your contract is gone?
Thatâs absolute and utter nonsense. There would be no legal system functioning world-wide if contract law were such a faulty mess.
Unquestionable that was nonsense what you wrote.
Actually nope, theyâre legally enforced to provide said product.
Once more nonsense.
Contracts are obligatory to be fulfilled, it doesnât matter if one side of the ownership of the contract changes.
Only special circumstances - with another narrow bandwith of what applies - is excempt from upholding it further onward.
Heck⌠in the EU thereâs even contracts around from the years ~1400⌠with people having old documents stating that they and their decendants are allowed to rent a specific area. Thatâs darn 700 years old contracts, and theyâre still legally binding. In my city (middle europe) thereâs even a few individuals living in areas of royal palaces for less then 10⏠per month since those old contracts still uphold. Upkeep? Owner pays it, at times the government. Because even the government here is enforced to uphold the damn law, as it should be.
Welcome to law.
Now for the quote:
Planned pay model: Parts were rescineded, plan didnât work out.
Unrescinded aspects upheld until release. Hence they have a even bigger contractual basis, as the end-result of changes was stated to be âreleaseâ.
Free access - Not relevant, no contract for the respective individuals made. No monetary loss in any form, hence no case.
14.99$ - Not contractually binding. Price changes are legally allowed. They scope and timeframe is even put into writing in law to account for potential necessary changes. Also, no contract yet applied. Hence 100% advertisment laws, not contractual.
What wasnât rescinded:
This part was never rescinded!!!
And thatâs the crux of it.
It upheld until release and hence became legally binding with a extremely high likelyhood to uphold in EU court.
Providing more then promised is allowed. Providing less is not.
Also factually wrong.
Once more:
Can the aspect of the one-time payment for the full experience without extra payments be material to the customers decision for buying into the product?
Obviously âYesâ. Hence it has a legal basis.
Once more: Irrelevant, this is advertisment law related and all lawful aspects there were actually upheld.
At best causes a reduction from full refund to partial.
Mostly irrelevant for the base premise.
Why? Because the promised product is not the half-assed middle-ground before itâs âreleasedâ. You only get early access to enjoy it in the unfinished state as a bonus. Doesnât need to be provided and has no bearing if any remuneration is mandated, only the size of said remuneration can be reduced. Itâs not voided though.
Irrelevant again.
F2p has no contract-basis, itâs âhere you go, enjoy!â. Hence no monetary damages can occur. Not applicable again.
Irrelevant as itâs only applicable to people outside the contract, you as a contract holder have access anyway, hence it doesnât effect you.
And the higher price is once again acceptance at the time of the price, hence you inherently agree to the momentary state. Exceptions can even apply there though.
A obligation stated at the moment of payment (no matter the size of payment) has not been contractually fulfilled though at that moment. Hence if thatâs not upheld in the future - and unless it has a defined end-term itâs indefinite - it is hence âbreach of contractâ.
So âdoesnât existâ irrelevant because no effect for the contract holder
âAt a different priceâ irrelevant since direct contractual agreement and fulfillment.
So the things in the kickstarter you like because you got more value is irrelevant that it is different, but the one thing youâve clutched on to is apparently not? It either is or isnât acceptable. Also wouldnât a change in price be the equivalent of a change in contract? (I already know the answer, itâs yes)
3 simple questions. Yes or no.
Did you back the kickstarter?
Did you receive the rewards for the listed pledge that you paid?
Did any single one of the pledge rewards at any tier say you would get all future content for free?
Guess what, they donât care about yes but or no but.
Again the full access to the game clearly refers to the system they intended to implement between a FTP model that doesnât even exist at this point.
You can constantly cry irrelevant when itâs something you canât defend, or make up reasons why only certain parts should apply but not others. It doesnât change anything. Fortunately we donât have to convince each other, but if you think a EU government is going to waste resources pursuing a âfraudâ case involving a US subsidiary of a Korean publisher over a case of âyea but he saidâ, then Iâm afraid you are in for disappointment.
UmhâŚ
Iâm talking about law. That doesnât give a shit about âlikingâ or ânot likingâ
You know what I would like? If EHG could get their shit together and suddenly provide a wonderful top-end product with nice balance, good smooth progression and tons of content and variety. But here we are, we donât always get what we like, and things we donât like can be better for something and we have to bear with it or leave.
And law also doesnât give a single shit whatâs âacceptableâ or ânot acceptableâ for you or me.
Ya know⌠Iâm usually a rather lenient person. People do crap, as long as itâs nothing too bad I donât mind.
By law if someone takes a single chewing gum from you without you allowing it - or especially disallowing it - they would legally go to jail for theft. In ym country to be specific⌠up to 6 months or a fine of up to 360 âdaily ratesâ. Which is a rate based upon severty of damage and income, with a limit of 4⏠to 5000âŹ. Obviously no sane policeman or judge would ever do something for such a neglicible thing, but by law you could be fined for friggin 6 months in jail or - since itâs basically no value - 1440⏠for grabbing a friggin chewing gum from someone who didnât allow you to.
Reasonable? No way.
Do I like it? Heck no, itâs far too severe for whatâs happened.
Fair though? Absolutely! You do crap and you get the result from doing crap.
-No, I was a day late finding out.
-Not applicable hence, but in the case of payment: No, I wouldnât have.
-Yes, the base tier did.
Also not what was talked about.
The aspect is future access
This sentence is the ambigious definition. At best it is a misleading one hence.
Lemme tell you why:
First off, it related to a one-time payment. It doesnât specifically relate to the 14,99$ for upgrading, you got that part a bit wrong there. The 14,99$ at that time are whatâs called shelf-price. Currently the shelf-price is 33,99⏠in my country.
F2P Access is a extra service, it doesnât bear any relevance to a shelf-price related argument.
Secondly, we have âwill be allâ, which can be taken in relation to the totality of the product, hence âwe donât need to pay more then a single entry feeâ. This works in both âmulti stage accessâ types as well as expansions actually, because it would be the equivalent in functionality to such a system.
Thirdly, we also have âthe complete Last Epoch experienceâ, which is ambigious. It can relate to the direct state available at the time or the total future state of the product.
In conjunction itâs at best misleading and at worst actually meant what it depicts.
Under law the question only is: Could a customer be reasonably think that this means theyâll only ever have to pay the shelf-price and nothing more going forward? And the answer there is with a overwhelming chance a âyesâ.
Thatâs the reasonable expectation. It would be baffling if the decision would be anything else in a courtroom.
Hence why I relate to the ambigious aspects of it being âplannedâ simply, which is the only realistic out for EHG.
Irrelevant. This is simple shareware basis. Premium access, F2P model.
No contract is formed until level 20 in the suggested system. Shelf-price is paid once to get full access.
Kinda like a sample at a supermarket. Just because youâre allowed to try a little piece of a fruit doesnât rescind you from giving it back when you find out that itâs rotten on the other side afterwards, despite intent to buy or even payment having happened already (unless the shop is exited by then).
Free access is a bonus, it has no legal bearing whatsoever. The company is not mandated to provide it as no monetary loss is invoked on any side.
Because it has no bearing to the specific point.
You cannot state âthe knife was in the kitchenâ and make a argument around a murder-case when the friggin person was shot with a damn gun
Monetary value of the product has no bearing to fulfillment of contractual obligations.
It matters jack-shit if pricing was changed before buying, it only does after buying AND if it affects you as the customer.
And the same goes for any other aspects. The things contractually agreed upon through advertisment or other ways of contractual obligations have to be upheld and fulfilled, in EHGs case by the time the release happened, which by the way⌠was broken even and was a potential case, no plaintiff no judge.
Which leads to the current state of it. If the situation changes the other side of the contract is not allowed to have any negatives related to that change. You can increase the value you provide⌠you can NEVER lower it.
Misleading business practice.
Not fraud.
Might wanna properly read whatâs written.
They do business in the EU, do you think the country theyâre based in does matter?
Do you even know how international business works?
Once more⌠business 101.
Next up: The EU has a âAgreement on the protection of investmentâ with South Korea, if you think they wouldnât make use of it when applicable then youâre even more gullible then you provided already with your âOh no⌠cannot do anything despite being wronged!â acting there.
Itâs your own damn choice if you do something. Thatâs up to you.
But telling people that there is no avenue to do so should they want to⌠thatâs just factually wrong information. Dunno which country youâre from, but it upholds neither in the US or the EU what youâre saying. Other countries maybe, dunno, ask someone who looks into it.
From a decent starting point with a slight misunderstanding of the situation you went over to full-on broken record. âBut the price! But the pricing!â
And then youâre surprised I say âIt bears no relevanceâ when you donât even get it together to speak about the specific point instead of 10 others along the line. Which⌠to reiterate here⌠I even answered all of them individually related to the topic.
But if you wanna argument properly maybe you should go and properly start learning how law fundamentally works. And not from âCSI Miamiâ or some other low quality show but from reading the actual acts, texts and some legal proceedings to get an inkling of what is and isnât possible.
If you wanna squander your own rights itâs up to you.
But damn well donât dare to try and squander those of others because you donât have the want to do something yourself and lack backbone so you have to validate yourself by trying to twist it over to what you perceive rather then what is reality.
