the problem is devs literally said in 2018 there WONT BE ANY PAID CONTENT AND ALL UPDATES WILL BE FOR FREE in the next year you will see bunch of classes for money and sub classes this is just the begining you are delusional if you think it wont be
Sadly, All of the PoE Tencent simps will destroy this game. They will never stop, they will continue to piss on an experience that is more entertaining, cheaper, and less punishing then anything on the market today. They will keep complaining and mischaracterizing the game until it is gone. They will make sure NO developer ever, ever makes a non pay to win multi player game ever again, they will make sure NO investor will ever get behind a game that does not have malicious micro transactions ever again and then they will complain that, nothing exists that does not have shitty micro transactions. I don’t understand why.
I read every comment every reason under here and not one of them comes from a place derived from any truth or logic.
I will say I absolutely love this game and everything that comes with it so far, I am not a fan of the parent company or a tencent fan but we have to deal with them.
And personally I have been depressed as fuck about the world as a whole and this game has been a brief but nice break from “gestures at everything that exists”
But I have little hope for the long term because a bunch of imbeciles are relentlessly attacking the community.
I do have one and only one suggestion…
Ban everyone that has these crazy unhinged unproductive points of view from every medium that exists. Do everything to block them and go over board you can not reason with people that clearly don’t give a shit about reason
Also stop trying to reason with these people call for a ban on every post that is totally unproductive and hateful
Judd has replied to every thing everyone has bothered to complain about that can be replied to and clearly people don’t care. They don’t want a change they don’t want an alterative course of action that is possible they will scorch the earth and complain about the fire.
Stop replying to non productive posts everywhere don’t give in to these things all of us need to do this ignore them and enjoy the game.
Next season I will do my best to buy EVERYTHING I can afford no matter what, I just wish the haters would move on
Which I did when he stated that objects are also runtime based. Which wasn’t stated before, the wording in the post before that was a little ambigious and I didn’t take it in that meaning.
As soon as that meaning came through though I took it ‘at face value’ 
Despite it actually being wrong I realized!
Yeah, but with the object-based solution you can have 100 different cursors in a menu as a choice and the sub-cursors as well changing related to that one. Sure… the program still has a ‘default’ cursor but you would instead simply have a permanent ‘mouse-over’ cursor texture.
The 2 core issues are size and performance. Because you also cannot change the size of the cursor in Unity properly for some weird reason.
So… they wouldn’t have a unique cursor but a choice of a variety of them… like many many games provide. Especially shooters with the aiming reticle. Albeit there it’s not quite the same anyway as it’s not a cursor.
When the discussion topic is solely about ‘is it possible’ then yes… it makes sense. You gotta lay the foundation before the follow-up makes sense… the issue was that we didn’t get through the foundation part… so the roof - the actual issue - didn’t come through.
Yeah, I spoke about non. Hence the opposite.
Possible but unfeasable.
The statement was ‘it is not possible’
My stance was ‘here is the code, it is possible’.
The resolution was a wrong information leading to the same end-result.
The right information leads through circumstance to the same, that one wasn’t mentioned though.
If you don’t know something exists.
I mean… that’s kinda obvious, right?
Imagine trying to search for every possible circumstance ever imaginable and non-imaginable before doing anything… you won’t get far 
So my point stands. Just because an issue exists and people talked about it doesn’t mean from the bazillion topics you’ve actually read the detailed reasoning rather then the - common - broad handwaving without any attached details.
Which in this situation is the case:
We cannot change the cursor as the unity engine doesn’t allow us to (this is the common end-point of the discussion, no technical aspects) → but here is the code which lets you do it individually (this is the follow-up commonly not mentioned) → and this is the technical reason as to why that one is non-functional in practicality (which came up in one thread to my knowledge and I haven’t seen it anywhere else yet, outside of here).
If the knowledge provision stops at ‘Point 1’ but you find ‘Point 2’ then obviously you’ll state ‘But hey, Point 1 isn’t right!’ unless you found ‘Point 3’.
Point 1 was discussed, I argued about Point 2, Point 3 was not mentioned outside of a link, which didn’t change the initial statement of possibility.
Stop expressing your opinions because it differs mine! I sure fucking hope you say nothing positive about this game as I have opposite feelings. How dare you dislike the actions of a person? Hitler did nothing wrong! Also no I am not saying EHG is Hitler just pointing out how dumb it is to ask people to stop having opinions just because you dont like them.
Yes, because using a dictionary attack on a search bar when you want to know about unity cursor issues is a totally reasonable, practical & absolutely not dumb as fuck suggestion.
You know, you’re right, I’m sure that every single Unity developer is a complete blithering idiot. Why don’t you post that suggestion on the Unity forums (I assume there is one), I’m sure every developer will be thanking you & praising your innovative solution!
I’ll wait.
This basically the softest language there is, based on the ideals they had and very much reads to me as “as long as our model and our intentions are working and sustainable”. If this is honestly the gospel that said they never even under no circumstances would charge for content, it’s all right there in “current plan”. Things changed for them.
2 Likes
Here’s the Steam Store instead:
- Zero Pay-To-Win
Last Epoch will never offer gameplay advantages by being able to spend real money. We believe in creating a fair environment for all players.
I would argue a class is exactly that and if it happens I have actually a cause for complaints at my consumer service here in Europe even.
If we’re still talking about ‘anything paid’ it’s fine, the soft language was for content expansions only.
Anything else? Sorry… no soft language available.
Now that is definitely more interesting. At that point it comes down to defending if a dlc class is paid to win.
There’s no pvp, there’s no MTX boosts, and the ladder doesn’t offer anything exclusive so it comes down to the definition of winning, or advantage. I have no idea how that would play out.
1 Like
P2W is not defined by competition itself since many many years. It’s defined by any environment which has the option for competing situations.
We’ve also got direct ones, which are the ladders and market competition itself.
And we got potential ones which are player-made races and competitions.
In both cases a class which does better then others in…well… anything does inherently become P2W hence.
And yes, it comes down to the definition of winning, that’s true.
Winning is when you compete actively or inactively against someone else. Be it with a direct result (visual representation on the ladder), gameplay upsides (more profit from the market) or outright doing better then you should otherwise in any form of actual competition (speedrun times for example).
1 Like
Both the ladder and the MG are subjectively doable by any class though, and by definition an expansion (which isn’t free to everyone, only those currently owning the game), may also have something exclusive to it that might count as an advantage, like zones that make leveling easier, dungeons with different loot, etc.
We also don’t even know if the class is going to be OP, or the state of the classes when it launches. I also don’t think making up your own competitions really qualifies as something within the scope of the company’s control so I doubt you could use that as an example.
Whether the ladder can be classified as a contest or competition may be up in the air, but then the obvious answer is to simply eliminate the ladder. I’d assume the people with the money are going to spend it on lawyers that will know the law way better than us here.
As the MG is unmoderated and uncontrolled by EHG, the advantage part of being able to list something sooner (I assume) which by design is exceptionally random to obtain in the first place, probably not a strong enough argument either. The players themselves have full control of what to list or buy and at what values, and as such should they choose not to buy from someone they suppose might have the dlc class for principle purposes, that would actually be a disadvantage. EHG simply doesn’t have control over the market at the moment, so unless they change that I don’t know if there’s something there.
Lastly you’d have to prove the class is better in all situations. If it had say an advantage in early game but not in late game, or vice versa, it’s a bit ambiguous. If it’s good in arena and bad in monos, or vice versa, then the p2w aspect would mean something different to each player. If there is wiggle room for what aspect counts as an advantage to different people it might just be considered “more of the same”.
Do you know what “should” means? My opinion isn’t wrong just because it doesn’t agree with yours.
Oh, I see. Irrelevant. Sure, that was a very difficult question. I wouldn’t have been able to give a clear answer either. How much new content are you missing if you can’t or don’t want the new purchasable class? It’s quite simple: You’re missing nothing except the class itself. You’re not missing any other new content.
Your “yes” is not 100% because you added a “but” and “but” always reduces everything that comes before it. I’ll take that as a “maybe.”
To be pay-to-win, you have to have an advantage. What is that advantage? And please answer this question with the understanding that we know nothing about the new class.
1 Like
Yep, and that’s the point.
If you provide a new class and this class provides a new way to play into the market or to advance to the top of the ladder then it’s inherently P2W already.
As for the expansion aspect:
Usually non-expansion players are distinct from expansion players, separate markets and ladders, unless EHG is utterly inept at least and they screw that up. It’s a baseline premise to do that.
So there it’s simply ‘another community’ rather then being in a better position. With a expansion one would expect new bases, new Affixes… new something at least you cannot get with the base game. If that’s not upheld then it’s solely a bit of story and at best viable enough to be Cycle content. So we gotta differ between that, it’s got to provide the perceived value after all, huge extras.
Yep, that’s true.
But any synergy overseen by the devs would have the potential to bring it there.
And we can absolutely expect it not to be the only class ever created, right? So the first might be fine… what about the second? The third?
And throughout all updates over the lifetime of the game… all those classes… not a single one is allowed to be at the top ever or it becomes P2W.
It’s not a snapshot in time, it’s a perpetual situation which is extremely problematic to uphold and not in the capability of EHG anyway… or any dev actually, it’s nonsensical amounts of effort for little return.
It’s 100% not up in the air for that.
If you compete in any form against another human being, be it directly, indirectly or even solely through social standing makes it a competition. Not a contest… but a competition.
Live-service games are inherently a competitive environment. Unless you screw up the live-service aspect even more then EHG did… and they already did that surprisingly much
Unlike in a SP game you’re commonly expected or even enforced to work with or against other people, hence you’re competing with them.
In games like WoW we got the open PvP areas, we got grouping for dungeons, we got raids, you need to have a baseline ability and gear level to do them and hence you’re competing with others for those places.
Then we got markets which are inherently snowballing a small portion of people. First providers get resources to stay ahead of following people. First access to good provided gear others can’t afford which then causes more market power to provide more to get even more. Every single market has that. So MG alone is already a guaranteed competition at all times.
We got ladders, leaderboards, scoreboards.
We got first-clear scenarios, which are also a unofficial competition. Like Uberroth first-kill.
Then we got actual competitions, be they official or unofficial. Supported or unsupported. As long as they can uphold the fairness in some way (Account/character SSF as example) you inherently have the environment to hold them and hence once again… win because of it.
There is - and never should be - visibility for who is listing items. Hence this doesn’t apply anyway.
One situation. Not all. One is enough.
Stated in my answer in this post above with the discussion about competition.
If you have a single upside in any form of competition then it is by definition ‘Pay 2 Win’.
Market.
Leaderboard.
Directly setup competition of any kind.
And even indirect competition of social position without a direct setup.
If the new class provides a different way to play the market or monos, then that’s not strong enough to say see it’s OP. Just because they do the same thing different doesn’t establish a case for p2w. They would have to objectively be better, not just because you feel like they are. It has to be measurable. If they beat out 2 of the 5 current classes, that could reflect the 2 classes are undertuned rather than the new class being overtuned.
If it’s not a snapshot, but perpetual, then by that definition they would have the ability to patch it and therefore it wouldn’t be p2w. Why? Because filing a case against them for explicit reasons could see those reasons change between the file date and the court date. It becomes impossible to control. You would need to be able to prove they intentionally made the class pay to win, and unless you had hidden chat logs or messages or any sort of physical evidence, it becomes a he said she said scenario, and game companies are notorious at not getting things exactly right from the outset. At that case it’s really easy to post “this character came out a little overturned and we are working on correcting it.” Intent has to be proven.
I would argue that live service games aren’t inherently competitive. I genuinely do not care how or what other people do in LE. Their achievements, playstyle, ladder rankings, corruption rankings, etc does not affect anything of how I play the game. I didn’t buy the game expecting to compete with anyone. MG? Not interesting to me. The problem is the ambiguity. You can’t say it’s inherent when there can and will be a section of the player base who do not care. The fact a lot of people play offline is a very solid defence for that, they and legacy players have opted out, and if you opt out it isn’t mandatory. Nobody in LE is expected or enforced to participate in the ladder or the MG.
Neither here nor there but that’s how the market already works. A meta class reaches endgame and floods the market with overly expensive high value legendaries. A new class doesn’t change that. The season changing doesn’t change that. If you cannot prove that the person listing the items are using the new classes, you cannot claim they have an unfair advantage because you have no proof they are using that class for said advantage. You’d basically have speculation.
If “unofficial” competitions were the liability of the company, that would open up literally any gaming company to being sued. There is absolutely no way you could tie this to EHG. If there was ever a situation that someone won a case based on unofficial competitions against the developer or publisher, I cannot image how fast the entire gaming industry would collapse.
I would argue right now that there are classes that are better at certain scenarios. A clear example is a heavy blinding thicket build. Absolutely monstrous walking simulator in monos. Less affective against abby. Unless the new class is just top of the class in every possibly way, you can point to any aspect of the game they are poor at an an example of how they are not pay to win. One is not enough, particularly when the concept of winning in this game is a clearly personal goal. If how you win is subjective, it’s hard to define it.
You could never prove that everyone cares about the ladder, or MG, or monos, or Abby, but it would be VERY easy to find examples against that. Ambiguity in law is too flimsy. That’s why I said it depends on how they define winning or advantage. You would have to have a very clear definition of it, at which point it’s easy to try to find the holes where it doesn’t apply to that definition.
1 Like
It doesn’t have to be ‘OP’ to be P2W though?
P2W is defined by those words inside of it. ‘You pay to have a way to win something’. Whatever that might be. So if you can play the market in a different way because of it… you win that aspect. If you can deal with Monos in a special way otherwise not seen and it’s good… you win at that.
And as mentioned… this class might be fine. How many will come? And will all be fine 100% of the time? Because as you state:
Is actually the other way around there!
If at any time it is by definition P2W.
Why?
‘You paid and you win during that timeframe’. The frame itself is of no meaning in duration. 1 day? Your money got you a winning thing for a day! You paid, you won. A month? EVen worse!
Any with EHG’s speed? A year? Well… all too obvious that it’s a clear-cut thing then
The premise would still exist, if someone actually would go to court over that (which would be the refund of parts or the whole base-game price there since it falls under breach of contract).
It’s not allowed to happen… but it did… hence the contract was broken. How much value that in totality has is then up to a court, and it would not be a individual resolution either as this would affect all players of the marketspace… hence EU-wide for example. So the reasoning for the customer protection services to take action is actually quite hefty in such a case, with the outcome likely being a enforced refund option for every single player affected… taking it or not being up to them then.
Intention is also irrelevant for that matter. It’s false advertising.
Intention would make it fraudulent instead of misleading simply. That would enforce vastly more severe consequences, from full refunds (instead of partial ones) to quite massive fines in the height of several percent of yearly total revenue for EHG likely.
Exactly, that’s 100% true!
It’s not necessary to have intent though.
Imagine it like this: You’re in the service of delivering some goods and installing them in a home. Now you state in your contract you’ll do that between the 10th and 15th.
You order the stuff which is supposed to come at the 1st… but because of some reason your order doesn’t arrive. It’s not there at the 10th… not there at the 15th.
Now by contract… you’re in breach of that, right? Because you stated ‘between 10th and 15th’ and it didn’t happen. In this case nothing was even delivered, the customer can get a full refund no questions asked, and isn’t allowed to have any costs either. Any costs of a bank transfer? Have to be refunded. Any extra costs? Refunded.
Heck… if it was something which would’ve provided a income as well you even have to pay the damages on top of it. So for example chairs for a conference room, freshly outfitted… no chairs… no conference… no work. So all damages related to that? Now your issue as the provider potentially, depending how reasonable a court would see the situation to go awry because of the lack of those chairs.
No intent.
Nonetheless damages claimed.
You do not. That’s fine.
As we know many do though. ‘That streamer has a great build, and mine looks like ass comparatively’ is a form of competition socially.
‘This guy makes 50 mil a day on the market and I can barely scratch together 1 mil’ is also a competition.
It’s not about the ‘you’ aspect there but the overall situation. If it doesn’t affect you personally it still can be a thing.
Yeah, but you bought the product and it’s a part of it, hence to demand avoidance of it to avoid responsibility is unreasonable.
What if someone bought the game for the reason of MG existing? So they’re inside the situation. Now you as a company cannot go and say ‘but you’re not enforced to use it!’. It was your reason for paying into the contract, the contract included it, the contract stated no P2W… now there is a market situation where it becomes P2W… breach of contract.
If it can farm a specific boss and hence those items in any superior way then another… yes, it does change it.
If someone provides testing for it and no other class provides a better outcome and nobody comes forth to provide a better solution either… then it’s during that time P2W.
It just needs a single situation where overall perception and no alternative is available and it’s already over.
One way. Not all… one.
That’s the major issue.
You need only one. That’s all, and whatever it might be. It’s contractually not allowed with the fixed statement given.
Caring or not is irrelevant there too, outside of ‘where there’s no claimant there’s no execution’.
As soon as someone puts forth a claim and it is seen as truthful it’s over.
Because that person cares… and hence since - as you rightfully state - you cannot know who cares or not… the option has to be given to everyone at that time to get out of the contract with a form of refund… size up for discussion.
That’s bullshit, sorry.
P2W is throwing more money at the game to be quicker and stronger than others. P2W is about getting a significant advantage (not a very slight one).
If you can spend an extra $1000 only to be as strong and fast as others, it’s not P2W, even if you have another class that plays different, but in the end, it still just kills monsters and picks up loot.
1 Like
Depends, are you talking about Pay 2 Progress? Which is a sub-form of Pay 2 Win but for quicker.
And the stronger is the classic Pay 2 Win. Which mandates solely having a single upside which otherwise isn’t available. It doesn’t need to be OP, it only needs to be specialized in something.
Different does not mean better, and if it isn’t better then how is it paying for an advantage? The definition of winning and advantage does matter. It has to be measurable within acceptable ranges. “This new class can outdo the other classes by running monoliths 3 seconds faster” just won’t cut it.
Again, the problem with a snapshot is that it can be taken out of context entirely. You could post dps numbers of new class and old, and unless the conditions for them are identical it doesn’t mean anything. Abilities have ranges, there are random elements like crit, shrine buffs, ally buffs like the paladin, optimized vs unoptimized passives, mastery choices, damage types, gear that supports those damage types. The number of factors are just too difficult to simplify into a definitive value, and dps isn’t even a reliable number because channeled attacks display a dps number that clearly isn’t correct. So it can’t be a single moment dictating the relative strength because those can be manipulated. Players using identical builds can end up with different rates of success based on skill. It just isn’t quantifiable.
Any legal group working towards a class action lawsuit would only bother doing it if they felt it would profitable for them, and it would have to be a sure thing. This is too ambiguous.
Intention is actually the basis for most law. In law, “intent” refers to the mental state or “guilty mind” a person has when committing a crime, which is a necessary component alongside the physical act. Different levels of intent exist, from specific intent (intending a particular outcome) to general intent (intending the act itself), and include categories like purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently, which determine the severity of the crime and punishment. Unless some genius CEO asked chatgpt how to commit this crime and admits to it, I don’t see how you could prove it from outside the company. Intent is absolutely necessary in this context.
Your example unfortunately only works in one case, the term you are looking for is sufficient connection. Are the companies a parent and subsidiary, or are they contractor or sub contractor? If not, you cannot be held liable for the actions of the other company. It gets even weirder. Let’s reverse it and the person in question gets their installation and refuses to pay. As the person who installed it, you have every right to take it back or destroy it because until it’s been paid for as agreed it is your property. Or what if they were told the buyer would be home on a certain date and when they went to install there was nobody home? It’s not exactly a breach of contract. The whole scenario itself is just unrealistic. A small scale contract involving an exchange between 2 parties is very unlikely to have such a restricted agreement, at best it would be “needs to be completed before this date” rather than a range. If no work was put in it wouldn’t be billed, and there wouldn’t be anything to refund. Assuming the person paid before hand, they can get a refund anytime they want if the work wasn’t done. They could even try to get a refund after the work was done, at which point the most realistic result would be to A) deny it as it is what they asked for or B) refund the cost of parts but not labour. They don’t need an excuse, but we wouldn’t call that a breach of contract either. In terms of the chairs, you would need to prove the damages caused by the actions to be able to value it. This would go back to the different levels of intent, which most likely could be negligence unless otherwise proven, which would change the damages penalties accordingly.
“Many” is not all, nor does it indicate majority. A comparison between another player, steamer or otherwise, could have disparity for a multitude of reasons, the easiest one for comparison is skill level, but due to the random nature of LE can also just be pure dumb luck. The examples you gave a straight up an unofficial competition, and EHG has no control or responsibility for you doing so. That would be called degrees of separation. Is it reasonable for the average person to conclude that EHG intended (or insinuated) that players should compete for gold acquired? Without EHG outright saying it, the degree of separation is too high, it’s not a reasonable leap.
“You are not enforced to use it” is basically the end of it. If they only cared about MG, they still have no idea if the people listing stuff is the new class or just veteran players. The ability for the player in question to use the MG isn’t reduced. The new class doesn’t prevent them from using it in any way, and the items sold by people only using the new class does not mean they will always sell. It’s really hard to quantify advantage here. I assume you mean they can kill faster or manipulate rng or something that would allow them to get more drops and therefore more chances at legendaries. That goes back to the concept of an average player having the same results. It would have to be the equivalent of the blinding thicket, which has virtually no skill cap. Same problem for “testing”. A data set of 1 is inconclusive. One person demonstrating advantage is not a big enough sample size to definitively prove it, so no, a single situation is not good enough. It would require a large sample size. Suppose someone did a video of how great the class is, and then another person posts one with better results from an old character. You don’t get to cherry pick the first example and go see, I knew it!
A new class does not change how the market works. The market will continue to have players post items at the value they think they can get. At best the argument could be made that said items being listed are BIS for the new class, at which point it has no bearing on the market outside of that class, and that’s not p2w.
A common theme in law like this is “the average X”. In this case the average player. Representing so many different people in a class action lawsuit has to operate under these conditions because it is impossible to represent everyone equally. That’s mostly what I was getting at when I said I don’t care about ladder. You would have to prove that the average player considered ladder an important part of the game, and therefore was the basis around making the class p2w. Or arena, or monolith, or whatever. Any one you pick still requires a degree of certainty. It’s not enough that Bob really likes ladder, and thinks everyone should too, and that the basis for character development should only revolve around it. Without showing intent from EHG that they specifically targetted that demographic when designing the character to be p2w in that scenario, it won’t go anywhere.
We talk about classic pay 2 win as players usually understand it, which is giving you a significant advantage for paying extra.
Examples for LE could be:
- forging potential protection from the MTX store
- select more than 1 legendary affix
- +100% chance of high LP drops
- reroll LP on an item
- +100% gold drop rate
- 10% more damage super cosmetic
- exalted affix crafting runes (upgrade to t6 or t7)
- buying 100.000 gold for $10
That’s examples for pay 2 win. Not: Play another class that doesn’t give a significant advantage.
Cosmetics that improve visibility are also P2W, right?
2 Likes
Just for lulz, there was a video of a bug for acid flask in rogues doing less damage when using a paid for retexture. In that case it was clearly a disadvantage. Even if the results were reversed and the bug responsible cause damage numbers to go up, it would be really hard to prove that there was intent behind it, since nowhere on the purchase does it suggest it should do that and as far as I know no other retexture had the same issue.
Actually it does. Because if you run 1000 monos then that makes it 3000 seconds faster which is nearing a whole hour already.
It’s cumulative stuff which provides upsides.
I’m not talking about the follow-up there… just the end-result it provides. Not the means.
This is in the EU outright false. As long as a case is there it gets taken up, that’s what the consumer protection services are for. They don’t need to pick their fights, they get paid by the taxpayer and take everything they get, with a focus on what has the highest chance of winning simply.
For the most severe things, yes.
In contract law intention makes things more severe but it’s not in any way necessary.
The example of the chairs being one of them. You never intended for anything bad to happen… but it did. So… who has to take the blame now?
Actually you are held liable. For the lawsuit of customer vs. you… you loose. But then you need to make a lawsuit for you vs. provider… which you’ll win.
Still you’re enforced to pay… and you can claim for those damages then. It’s a bit messy.
As for the follow-up: Yes, you can take it back out… mostly! Some situations in countries (US included) exists where you’re actually not allowed to, which makes upfront payment in those cases nigh mandatory.
When nobody is home: Failure of the contractor, hence break of contract from their side. Not your issue. All costs have to be remunerated from their side actually for the extra effort. Reason for it? Doesn’t matter for it being a case, just how large the case is.
Quite the contrary!
Ever received a notification of ‘We’ll deliver your parcel at the date of xyz and the time of xyz between xyz’? That’s such a situation. Here in my country nigh everyone had that happening a few times. The statement of ‘it’ll come there’ is the specification. If you’re not home you don’t get it delivered to your home but gotta get out of your way to pick it up at the respective pickup station… which makes ‘in house delivery’ quite impossible suddenly
Well, we paid for a full-scale product here, didn’t we?
So… by that logic we can order a refund now, can’t we? Because neither was it finished at the respective date nor at the respective scale, right?
Sure, we used a lot of the product already… but for the remainder we’re eligible now, aren’t we still? Percentile is up for discussion… and the weight of it being a unfinished versus finished product on top. But remuneration is a base premise this way, right?
Upfront payment?
Depends.
What if it’s not what you asked for?
Or what if the details of the ask differ?
There’s a lot more to it.
If there is no breach of contract then there is no lawful reason for a refund.
The only reasons for a refund outside of breach of contract are time limitations to rescind from a contract of some sort which are mandatory by law (or in the contract) and leeway from the company which they don’t have to give you. They can, but they can also say ‘no’.
If a lawful refund is to be given then it’s because a breach happened. Breach of contract is a extremely common scenario.
I’m sure you’ve breached several contracts as well during your lifetime, work-contracts are extremely easy to breach by mistake but nobody says anything. That’s the provided leeway.
Got 35 minutes of lunch but you were back after 40? You just made a breach of contract actually when we’re technical.
‘No Pay 2 Win’. This isn’t reliant on only EHG’s provision of those.
Any content which causes you the ability to ‘win’ and has to be paid for is by definition ‘Pay 2 Win’. The win is not specified, the size of payment is also not specified.
Now we provide a secondary leveling method which happens to be a bit faster. To get that you have to pay for the content.
Content itself cannot be inherently ‘Pay 2 Win’ after all, right? It’s the same as a class, and this one is also not split for access, same as the class.
But… it’s slightly faster.
So have you now paid for something which allows you to win in comparison to someone who hasn’t paid… or is it not?
Same situation with a Class.
Right, if the new class has a ability which allows something like the D2 barbarian shout to create loot out of corpses for example… is that Pay 2 Win or not?
What would you say?
And is it Pay 2 Win because the outcome is superior then compared to other classes?
I would say ‘yes’, even if the class absolutely sucks otherwise… if you get 20% more loot for example and you play to ~800 corruption it suddenly is superior to anyone playing at ~1500 corruption. Isn’t it?
It’s worse… but it’s better.
That’s why I’m saying ‘it isn’t allowed to be better at any point’. It doesn’t matter if it can do all better… it sucks at bosses, it sucks at monoliths… but it’s still doing something better, which is generation of generic loot. So now in any area demanding ‘creation of generic loot’ it’s superior and hence ‘Pay 2 Win’.
Umh… it absolutely does? Solely from supply/demand aspects? That’s a given.
So a new class changes prices. If the new class provides more loot then the prices sink since demand isn’t upholding, which while said class gets reliable income still - as they can create it - the others suffer for it. That’s how a market works unless hard limits are introduced.
Which is why for example the quantity groups creating ridiculous amounts of loot in Path of Exile are a detriment for the general player.
Or why strategies working a lot better in T17 is causing anyone running T16 to not be able to profit from the same mechanics often, hence having to run other mechanics instead.
So yeah… yeah it does.
Give 20 people at roughly the same skill the comparison class… then the class in question… have them do the same stuff… check time needed. And for fairness half the comparison first and half the one in question first so ‘warming up’ doesn’t weight in.
For example, as a random nonsensical example to test it.
Significant is the problematic term here, isn’t it?
It just needs to be ‘a advantage’ to fulfill the term.
Because what if you pay for miniscule stuff? Does miniscule progression stop being Pay 2 Win despite being progression? How about paying for Havoc runes but you can only buy… 2 per day? It’s a upside, a Pay 2 Win clearly… but the effect is miniscule as you’ll farm far more then 2 per day personally.
A class has the same issues. It’s not about magnitude, just about existence.