Stop the hatred!

[Kulze]

@Warchon

then that’s not strong enough to say see it’s OP.

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:

@Warchon

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.

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

@Warchon

Because filing a case against them for explicit reasons could see those reasons change between the file date and the court date.

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.

@Warchon

intentionally

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.

@Warchon

Intent has to be proven.

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.

@Warchon

I genuinely do not care how or what other people do in LE.

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.

@Warchon

Nobody in LE is expected or enforced to participate in the ladder or the MG.

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.

@Warchon

A new class doesn’t change that.

If it can farm a specific boss and hence those items in any superior way then another… yes, it does change it.

@Warchon

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.

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.

@Warchon

Unless the new class is just top of the class in every possibly way

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.

@Warchon

You could never prove that everyone cares about the ladder,

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.

[HorusKBZ]

@Kulze

It doesn’t have to be ‘OP’ to be P2W though?

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.

[Kulze]

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.

[Warchon]

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.

[HorusKBZ]

@Kulze

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.

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?

[Warchon]

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.

[Kulze]

@Warchon

“This new class can outdo the other classes by running monoliths 3 seconds faster” just won’t cut it.

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.

@Warchon

Again, the problem with a snapshot is that it can be taken out of context entirely.

I’m not talking about the follow-up there… just the end-result it provides. Not the means.

@Warchon

would only bother doing it if they felt it would profitable for them

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.

@Warchon

Intention is actually the basis for most law.

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?

@Warchon

If not, you cannot be held liable for the actions of the other company.

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.

@Warchon

A small scale contract involving an exchange between 2 parties is very unlikely to have such a restricted agreement,

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

@Warchon

Assuming the person paid before hand, they can get a refund anytime they want if the work wasn’t done.

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?

@Warchon

If no work was put in it wouldn’t be billed, and there wouldn’t be anything to refund.

Upfront payment?

@Warchon

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.

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.

@Warchon

They don’t need an excuse, but we wouldn’t call that a breach of contract either.

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.

@Warchon

and EHG has no control or responsibility for you doing so.

‘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.

@Warchon

“You are not enforced to use it” is basically the end of it.

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.

@Warchon

The ability for the player in question to use the MG isn’t reduced.

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’.

@Warchon

A new class does not change how the market works.

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.

@Warchon

A common theme in law like this is “the average X”. In this case the average player.

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.

@HorusKBZ

which is giving you a significant advantage for paying extra.

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.

[Warchon]

I figured you would glomp onto acorns grow in to oak trees, but still let’s say 1000 monos takes you an average of 8 mins per mono, which is super hard to quantify already because even the monos are random in length, objective, etc. that’s 8000 minutes or 133.3-ish hours. 50 minutes is not even 1% of that. It’s not statistically significant.

Comparing only end results is the problem. A single snapshot of a moment can be manipulated to show advantage or disadvantage if you cherry pick the results that best suit your case.

You don’t have a good grasp of intent. Let me reiterate what it refers to in law:
“Intent” refers to the mental state or “guilty mind” a person has when commiting a crime. The analogies are not strong comparisons either way but let’s play this out. On the way to the venue a car smashes into the transport carrying the chairs and they are destroyed. The company delivering the chairs has committed no crimes. There wasn’t intent behind the actions of the driver, or the company, to have those chairs destroyed. Therefore, the venue cannot sue for damages caused by not getting said chairs. It’s degrees is separation. A rational average person would not come to the conclusion that the company delivering chairs had the intent to not deliver.

Again it comes down to intent with the delivery and installation of X. The provider of that service only has to show that the channels they were using to provide the service were exhausted and a rational average person would assume they did not have intent to break contract.

Also there’s “a lot more to” any of your examples when you move the goalposts. Ah ah ah! Apparently the delivery driver also kicked her dog and punched her child. Also they used the wrong screwdriver because we somehow included it in the contract, or the measurements were off by 1/10th of an inch.

The idea of “lawful reasons” for refunds is also just silly. Assuming you fit within the agreed window allowed for returns or refunds you don’t even have to explain why you are refunding it.

Your concept of contract is so overarching that it sounds like free-man-on-the-land nonsense. It’s effectively like saying social norms are contracts, something said in passing is a contract, there is no exceptions or allowances in contract, everything is laid out in its entirety in every contract down the second. It’s just not reality. It’s also wildly different when comparing spoken word agreements vs signed documents. And even with signed documents there is leniency awarded to both parties.

I decided to have a hotdog eating contest while playing last epoch, but I spilled mustard on my keyboard and now it’s broken. It’s an unofficial challenge I arbitrarily made up, but because it was EHG’s property I was using when doing it it’s definitely their fault. They didn’t specifically say I couldn’t do that, or shouldn’t do that. And man, that dlc class has a build that would have let me do it easier, so it’s clearly p2w in my unofficial competition. Do you see how ridiculous trying to attach damages to EHG is for things way outside the scope of their control?

Win absolutely has to be defined and specified. It is the entire metric for the litmus test. Also there being no payment or reward for achieving higher numbers in this game, it makes the definition of win a lot trickier to define. The ladder pays out nothing but bragging rights or a sense of accomplishment.

“I’ve invented a MTX that boosts your character to endgame faster than those who don’t have it. There is no skill requirement and no gate to use it other than just give us money.” That is 100% the easiest thing to argue as pay to win. It’s objective, it’s measurable, it has no variance between players. It is not that simple for a class. There are so many permutations just choosing passive skills. On top of even more insane permutations choose skills masteries. And all of that aside, the absolute worst factor of all, human error. We could have identical builds, basically copied a build from LEtools. That does not guarantee we will reach the same heights with the same level of difficulty because skill also has to factor into it, and after skill comes luck.

As for a class ability that just spawns loot, that’s a whole different can of worms. What if it pops out nothing but whites? What if it only pops out potions? What if having it be at a point where the return is useful it eats up one of your skill masteries, which in turn slows down your run times? If the class sucked and your compensation was you get more loot on a chance, which would in no way be comparable to the loot at twice the corruption level, I’d say you absolutely didn’t pay to win. It’s worse but it does it in a different way. That doesn’t sound like an advantage.

Again, the MG does not change in function. You still lisr objects for sale, buy objects that others list. You as a buyer have no idea if the seller is the new class, or even if they are if they are playing the class well. It’s a system built entirely around random number generation. It is entirely possible, with no hidden modifiers to the class, for that class to get lucky, or unlucky, in drops. More chances at loot will increase the odds, but it would have to be proven somehow that correlation equals causation. We’ve all seen the red ring prices, quantity does not affect them at the same rate as other legendaries. You would need to A) prove the influx of items is purely thanks to the new class, B) prove that them listing those objects are the direct reaction that caused a dip in market price, and C) the numbers would have to have a significance that directly results from it. You would effectively need information you are not privy to because just saying "look the price of things feel like they went down and it feels like it’s the new classes fault isn’t going to cut it. Maybe drop rates changed. Maybe more consecutive players are playing. Maybe there are new systems in place that help reduce rng. It would be near impossible to prove that.

How do you pick these 20 people? How do you compare their skill levels? Do they have better skill levels depending on the class they play? Do they understand the new class enough to get the most out of it? Are you only going to compare 2 out of the 6 classes? How do we know in that case if the other class is simply underperforming? And, this is the most important part, a sample size of 20 is also laughably insignificant. Let’s say a legendary has a 1/12,800 drop rate from only boss A. And someone kills boss A and gets it on their first try. Only using that data, it’s basically 100% right? What if 12,800 people fight boss A and nobody gets it. A statistical possibility that does not reflect the data, as it’s now 0% chance. The more data you collect, the more the average shows accuracy. You would need hundreds if not thousands. And who’s going to compile that data, you? Some lawyer who doesn’t even understand the game and it’s nuances? Guaranteed EHG would, but for their own metrics.

Lastly significant is the problem, but not in the way you are stating. If there are differences in the classes that average maybe a 1-2% difference, it isn’t significant enough to call it pay to win. The reason being there are too many factors for what could cause those differences, skill, resource, time, experience, rng. It would fall within an acceptable error range.

It is again not comparable to something like buying an MTX that just gives you 2 havoc runes a day. Why? Because regardless of who buys it, the value is measurable, constant, and quantifiable. It does not allow for randomness or error, it does not rely on skill or luck. It simply is.

[HorusKBZ]

@Kulze

‘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.

Probably any judge will disagree with you and apply what a reasonable consumer from the target group uses as a definition.

You try to squeeze out what those words could mean, but they don’t, in this context.

@Kulze

Significant is the problematic term here, isn’t it?
It just needs to be ‘a advantage’ to fulfill the term.

Not by what your usual gamer considers P2W.
Nobody ‘wins’ by buying 2 havoc runes.
The advantage is statistically insignificant.

[Kulze]

@Warchon

It’s not statistically significant.

It’s not, but 1% better then the alternative is… still better, isn’t it?

As mentioned… the scale is of no meaning, just the existence.

@Warchon

Comparing only end results is the problem.

That’s the definition of ‘winning’. If you’ve won it doesn’t matter what route you took (as long as it’s not a invalid one of some kind)… it just matters you arrived at the goal as the first person.

@Warchon

“Intent” refers to the mental state or “guilty mind” a person has when commiting a crime.

Yeah, I know.

And if you neither intend nor think you did anything wrong (it being outside of your abilities) you can still be ‘at fault’.

If your building burns down where you contractually store a piece of artwork which is contractually set down at a specific price… then you gotta pay out the owner the value of the artwork.
Have you set the fire? No.
Did you intent it do burn down? No.
Do you have any fault at all? No.

Still it’s your task to provide the safety, which isn’t done and hence you’ve broken contract… which enforces the payment.

No guilty mind… no intent… no nothing… still responsible.

Intent is of no matter here.

@Warchon

Also there’s “a lot more to” any of your examples when you move the goalposts. Ah ah ah!

Yeah, there is a lot more since it depends always on the specific circumstances.

But contractual breach itself is always a very simplistic part… the question is only about how much you get and how severe the breach is.

@Warchon

Assuming you fit within the agreed window allowed for returns or refunds you don’t even have to explain why you are refunding it.

Which is not based on contractual breach, which is the topic here though.

@Warchon

It’s effectively like saying social norms are contracts, something said in passing is a contract, there is no exceptions or allowances in contract, everything is laid out in its entirety in every contract down the second.

No, not everything… which is why we have things like ‘reasonable expectations’ built into law as well. Which are up for discussion and which are cirumstancial.

But other things which don’t need to be spoken out are clear-cut despite not mentioning them.

Bought something and it’s not excluded from the miniscule list of non-returnable wares (like underwear which has been opened up and hence potentially used for example, or food before leaving the store)? Then as long as it’s a company… they have to take it back.

But that’s also not related to breach of contract.

Breach of contract is everything solely related to the baseline of a contract (hence what the law dictates) versus the things described which are not dictated by law (content of service/exchange and so on).
In my country for example the baseline cannot be excempted… so you cannot state ‘you void your right to xyz’ because that wouldn’t be lawful, you can actually sign - under full knowledge - those contracts and those parts won’t apply to you, they’re non-enforcable. (Which by the way is why parts of EULA’s and aspects of ToS’ won’t apply to a EU citizen despite being written down).

And no, verbal contracts (verbal agreements) are legally as binding… the issue is burden of proof solely. But a verbal contract has in my country for example the same legal weight as a written document.
If for example someone provides a video-proof of my verbal statement and I broke it… I’m in deep shit basically.
If there’s none? Well… go ahead, proof it!

@Warchon

Do you see how ridiculous trying to attach damages to EHG is for things way outside the scope of their control?

Umh… you’re pushing the example one step too far.
The damage of the keyboard is not related to the product obviously? Wasn’t the topic either?

But if someone makes a known ‘Play the game while eating a hotdog’ competition with a price-pool (and even worse if EHG themselves would do it) and the class allows the usage of the game with only one hand easily while all others don’t in some way. Yes this is P2W then.

Which is my basic statement of: ‘If a class is in anything better then all other provided ones then that is P2W by definition’.

No matter the absurdity of it.

@Warchon

Win absolutely has to be defined and specified.

But it isn’t.
That’s what makes the situation so problematic. Because you cannot define what is a viable externally visible or internally mental situation to be relevant and why others aren’t. They are all based on the same core premise of ‘Me doing better then someone else’. That’s it, that’s all that’s needed.

You cannot win if you don’t compare yourself to someone else. As soon as you compare yourself to someone else you can win or loose.

Well… to be fair you can also win against yourself, former state versus existing state… or current state versus future state.

@Warchon

What if it only pops out potions?

Superior for potion builds. Could have a synergy which causes those to make monolith running optimal comparatiely to all other builds now, could it? Voila… P2W!

The details of it are irrelevant… you cannot control all aspects… and that is exactly my point.
If the risk for superior is available you immediately put yourself in risk for breach of contract via the Steam page… which is contractually binding advertisment (At least in the EU).

@Warchon

which would in no way be comparable to the loot at twice the corruption level

Depends on the corruption level, because there is a sort of hard-cap on 1k Corruption where it simply doesn’t scale anymore… so unless it’s below that you got quite a hefty issue should someone get to that point because of being highly skilled for example.

Because in a competition they would’ve a distinct superior position should it go far enough to include those areas of the game still.

@Warchon

Again, the MG does not change in function.

It changes in state though.
As change is inevitable with change to the base situation obviously.

The function is still irrelevant because we don’t have any need for that to change, we solely look at the outcome for a ‘win’. Journey is irrelevant.

@Warchon

How do you pick these 20 people?

That’s why I called it a dumb example.
Pick a large group and it becomes ever more clear what the outcome is as the normal curve of distribution causes it to be unlikely to showcase a wrong state.

@Warchon

If there are differences in the classes that average maybe a 1-2% difference, it isn’t significant enough to call it pay to win.

I’m stating something very important now:

Which exact percentile is significant?
Is it 3?
2,3?
11,5%

Which exactly?
Scale causes a change in the severty of a breach of contract… but it doesn’t take away for it to happen.

At 0,00000000001% it already is the case.
No matter the scale, as long as it is present the definition is fulfilled.
If it’s meaningful though is another topic. But that’s not what the core topic is.

Pay 2 Win is not allowed to happen.
Scale is of no meaning.

@HorusKBZ

Probably any judge will disagree with you and apply what a reasonable consumer from the target group uses as a definition.

You try to squeeze out what those words could mean, but they don’t, in this context.

Fair one.
Within reason is definitely applying here. You#re right.

@HorusKBZ

Nobody ‘wins’ by buying 2 havoc runes.

You got your result with one of those 2.
Now you’ve won!

Significance is of no meaning.

What would you think would be the perception if this exact example was a reality.
Now we got a 100% streamed competition which has no rule against using the store… as that’s the only functional gameplay mechanic is inside there.

And the win comes down to the winner buying a rune of Havoc, getting the necessary result from that one… and going along to win the first place by a difference of 1 second.

Still not ‘Pay 2 Win’?

Always imagine what public perception would be if it were in a competitive situation already and visible to everyone. If it provides any possible upside to a competition it is by definition ‘Pay 2 Win’.
Scale doesn’t matter.

[HorusKBZ]

@Kulze

What would you think would be the perception if this exact example was a reality.
Now we got a 100% streamed competition which has no rule against using the store… as that’s the only functional gameplay mechanic is inside there.

And the win comes down to the winner buying a rune of Havoc, getting the necessary result from that one… and going along to win the first place by a difference of 1 second.

Cool story, but just that: a story. A hypothetical so unlikely that it is insignificant.

By your ultra-narrow definition, everything is pay 2 win that you can spend money on and that you can contrieve the slightest advantage from:

• My MTX skill visuals make me perceive the screen better, or cause less lag, giving me that accumulative 0.01% edge. P2W.
• a convenience option saves 0.01 seconds on average per town visit, giving a player more time in the echo. That’s more loot and more XP.
• the average convenience option saves 1% frustration, making players playing 1% more; thus they are 1% better at the end of the season.

Significance is always, well, significant. You put significance on 2 havocs per day because there is a 0.000000001% chance that it actually changes the outcome. I consider this an insignificant margin.

[Kulze]

@HorusKBZ

By your ultra-narrow definition, everything is pay 2 win that you can spend money on and that you can contrieve the slightest advantage from:

Exactly!

@HorusKBZ

My MTX skill visuals make me perceive the screen better, or cause less lag, giving me that accumulative 0.01% edge. P2W.

In some games MTX indeed are received as P2W since they provide upsides.
For example if the model in a shooter is quite distinct and a MTX provides a camo-effect. That is indeed P2W, the more obvious the more clearly, but doesn’t change the aspect that it’s a upside and has gotten some developers to have some issues with their community.

[Macknum]

@Kulze

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.

Didn’t they even said they don’t sell stuff with functions like pets that collect loot because that will be advantageous every time the topic came up? I would say a class offers far more function then a pet that collects stuff.

[HorusKBZ]

@Kulze

In some games MTX indeed are received as P2W since they provide upsides.

So, all cosmetics in LE need to be balanced to be visually cluttering the same and lagging the same, because otherwise it’s P2W?

MTX = microtransaction = all purchases ingame for a (theoretically small) fee. Includes cosmetics, but also all other stuff like boosters, currency, stash tabs in PoE etc.

@Macknum

I would say a class offers far more function then a pet that collects stuff.

All classes can kill monsters, loot stuff, have the same crafting chances etc. There is no real difference in functionality between classes. All have skills that are designed to kill, to move around the map, to protect or heal, etc.

Runemaster and Sentinel are functionally the same, the differences in gameplay are just nuances. What buttons to press to kill, to protect or heal oneself, or to move around the map.

Pets that loot are a new functionality.

[Kulze]

@HorusKBZ

So, all cosmetics in LE need to be balanced to be visually cluttering the same and lagging the same, because otherwise it’s P2W?

No, because that’s not a function, your PC might not be able to handle it, it’s commonly the other way around from the baseline. Instead if something improves a situation like ‘invisible effect MTX’ then yes, this is perceived as a P2W MTX commonly for a reason. It’s selling functionality which should be a baseline in existence, upside provided.

@HorusKBZ

MTX = microtransaction = all purchases ingame for a (theoretically small) fee.

Most people use the term nowadays for vanity items, hence cosmetics rather then the ‘proper’ all-encompassing one which would be right.
Got the bad habit as well.

@HorusKBZ

Pets that loot are a new functionality.

New function as paid form is bad.

Improved function (any, once more) is also bad.

Both to be avoided.

Split community to not allow paid aspects to provide a upside inside the respective area? That’s fine. Not P2W. So if expansion players and normal players are separate… or if you can convert your non-expansion stuff over and choose if a character is expansion or non-expansion.

[Warchon]

@Kulze

Umh… you’re pushing the example one step too far.
The damage of the keyboard is not related to the product obviously? Wasn’t the topic either?

But if someone makes a known ‘Play the game while eating a hotdog’ competition with a price-pool (and even worse if EHG themselves would do it) and the class allows the usage of the game with only one hand easily while all others don’t in some way. Yes this is P2W then.

Which is my basic statement of: ‘If a class is in anything better then all other provided ones then that is P2W by definition’.

Literally cannot right now. You took my outrageous example of the most ludicrous thing I could think of and were like “yup, still EHG’s fault”. There is no way you can tie hotdog eating to EHG. It’s not anywhere in the realm of the possibility of any company’s liability to have a clause for “what if some random dude made up a contest to eat hotdogs while using our product.” A contest or competition hosted by a 3rd party is in no way the responsibility of the 1st party. It would be impossible litigation.

@Kulze

Pick a large group and it becomes ever more clear what the outcome is as the normal curve of distribution causes it to be unlikely to showcase a wrong state.

This. This right here blows my mind. You understand that a larger collection of data over a curve causes the data represented less likely to show a wrong state. It allows you to extrapolate information without biases. And your immediate thought is that’s why it doesn’t count? It’s literally the proof.

It’s not the willful ignorance, or the bad faith arguments, or lack of knowledge or research, or verification. It’s the pure arrogant entitlement. “MY government is going to spend other people’s taxpayer money just to fulfil MY power trip fantasy and the law will be dictated entirely by MY interpretation of it, because MY version of events is the only one that matters. The defence gets no rights, no ability to defend themselves, the law is MY own personal weapon to eek out MY brand of justice.” You pretend they are going to spend resources to comb through months or years of data to support your claim over a video game, because 1 person out of 3 million owners of the game happens to live in the EU. You assume that EHG and Krafton don’t have a team of lawyers they will check with first. You assume the law works only for the little guy. If that was true, rich people wouldn’t get away with the same crimes a poor person doesn’t.

You do not understand the basic principles which is why it’s impossible to explain why you are wrong and you refuse to learn them. You make up straw men, move goal posts, dismiss what you don’t like outright but claiming it’s irrelevant. “Scale doesn’t matter, except for severity of damages”, Scale is the entire proof. You have to actually prove your statement with empirical evidence. “Significance has no meaning.” What? Judge, judge! I had a hot dog eating competition not sponsored or even acknowledge by EHG and I’m using the data from it as my proof. First question asked: what does eating hotdogs have to do with an intangible asset owned by another company that has not nor as far as we can tell ever will have anything to do with hotdogs?

Simple litmus test. Each class is simultaneously played by 10000 different people. And at the end of the day 1 person from team dlc outshines every single other player. You’re bizarre reality is that you get to cherry pick the 1 instance that supports your claim and disregard everything else. That’s not reality. Guess what the defense is: “that data is an outlier and does not represent the experience of the community as a whole.” No reasonable average person would look at that data and say it was p2w.

“What % is reasonable?” It’s called acceptable variance you wing nut. You don’t make a variance of 0%. Id say look it up but you won’t. Id explain it but you wouldn’t understand it. Simply put it would be the entire lynchpin of your case, or the defenses. You can only prove something defined by facts, not feelings.

[Llama8]

@Kulze

It’s not, but 1% better then the alternative is… still better, isn’t it?

As mentioned… the scale is of no meaning, just the existence.

Really? If someone’s getting their knickers in a twist for a difference that small they really need to get a grip.

@Warchon

This. This right here blows my mind. You understand that a larger collection of data over a curve causes the data represented less likely to show a wrong state. It allows you to extrapolate information without biases. And your immediate thought is that’s why it doesn’t count? It’s literally the proof.

It’s not the willful ignorance, or the bad faith arguments, or lack of knowledge or research, or verification. It’s the pure arrogant entitlement.

Welcome to Kulze’s arguments.

[Lightdark]

The game was sold on premise, its buy to play, the promise for selling the game, if you buy it, the rest of the features comes free, these are devs words, so if this was broken, I expect full refund for a broken promise, as that is why I bought the game, in believing that, if it was a lie, I want my money back, and let the game die at that point I dont care

[nllsq]

A satisfied customer would gladly pay. I think the issue here is that players expected something which felt so close, just behind the corner with the great potential that came with crafting, skill customization, and the Circle of Fortune faction. Still, something was missing, and the player frustration not shows its head with respect to the paid content issue.

[Macknum]

@HorusKBZ

All classes can kill monsters, loot stuff, have the same crafting chances etc. There is no real difference in functionality between classes.

Wasn’t their first advertisment that those classes play completely different though?