it was good while it lasted. also not paying even more for the game that is lower priority for me. got my money’s worth in 3 seasons.
1 Like
Laws apply above the notions any company provides to the consumer.
As a EU citizen you can completely ignore that you are not buying something when backing a project. Because you do when it’s reward-based 
Not if it’s one of the other 3 options though.
I’m talking about core elements. Not balance based stuff.
Has the UI been fixed?
Have the factions been fixed?
Have the dungeons been fixed? (And I don’t mean atrociously awful solutions like a complete skip or just throwing in loot pinatas in the form of lizards)
So… what did they want? 200k people? 500k people?
How delusional should EHG become compared to being one of the biggest indie hits the world has ever seen?
Did they expect to be another Minecraft?
What you’re referring to is the ‘EU Crowdfunding Regulation’ (2020/1503) which focuses on investment- and lending-based crowdfunding. Which is above mentioned as equity-based and debt-based.
It’s what I get 99% of the time when I search for crowdfunding, it’s a mess to wrangle the internet to get the respective directives rather then always and over and over again simply leading towards the 2020/1503.
To be specific applicable parts I’ve found in 2000/31/EC, which is communication-based and includes crowdfunding projects.
2006/114/EC which specifically relates to misleading and comparative avdertising.
2005/29/EC which does relay to business-t-consumer comercial practices in the internal market, meant to protect consumers against misleasing and/or aggressive crowdfunding practices.
93/13/EEC for unfair terms in consumer contracts, hence standard terms&conditions used from crowdfunding operators.
Already in 93/27/EC it’s under Article 7 stated that the directive directly addresses commercial practices directly related to influencing consumers decisions in relation to products.
Since a reward-based crowdfunding is creating a product it wasn’t directly addressed but included into the law there, only going further as it was revisioned.
If we go further into it then we see a case for Article 5/2/b aplying, which states: A commercial practice shall be unfair if it materially distors or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour with regard to the product of the average consumer whom it reaches or to whom it is addressed, or of the avergae member of the group when a commercial practice is directed to a particular group of customers. (Older directives were a mouthful).
Article 6-8 proclaim what exactly is misleading or aggressive.
Article 6/1 goes especially into the definition of misleading, which is interestingly written as well as it implies a lot of stuff can easily be misleading.
‘a commercial practive shall be regarded as misleading if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way, including overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer (and here comes the banger) , even if the information is factually correct., in relation to one of the following elements, and in either cases causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise.’
That part is from 1998.
Article 6/1/b proclaims it’s misleading if it’s not ensuring to have the main characteristics. This includes composition (3 end-game emchanics, having PvP and so on which is missing from the kickstarter page’s direct mentions and not deemed as provided hence), date of manufacture or provision (roadmap stating release in 2020), fitness for purpose (which includes that it does do what was proclaimed, lack of PvP is for example not fit for purpose hence in that regard) and some more which I personally don’t know if they might or might not apply.
Article 6/1/c goes into the extent of the trader’s commitments, which is clear-cut applying to crowdfunding already.
Further on in Article 6/2 we get into a core aspect as well.
Article 6/2 ‘A commercial practice shall also be regarded as misleading, in it’s factual contect, taking account of all its features and circumstances, it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise, and it involves:’
So here it becomes interesting, and this is where distinct aspects of the promises can be removed. Hence why EHG is not directly enforced to provide the things already mentioned above in full. This is the ‘legal gray area’ people speak about when it comes to realizing a project’s scale. This one directly clashes with Article 6/1 in some measures and hence has to be decided case-by-case, which is why people don’t run directly to the ECC to complain in 1.0 as it’s not 100% realized.
Specifically Article 6/2/b.
'Non compliance by the trader with commitments (crowdfunding is a commitment) contained in codes of conduct by which the trader has undertaken to be bound, where:
i) The commitment is not aspitational but is form and is capable of being verified (this is related to the content, as content is aspirational to be created to a degree. The core notion has to exist - which makes missing end-game mechanics a issue for example, or missing PvP - but the form it takes is not fixated.)
ii) The trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by code (this is payment methods. You cannot be aspirational in the form of monetization you make as it’s a code-bound commercial practice. The code here is the law as it would otherwise be misleading for the customer. You cannot tell someone you get all possible upgrades to something and then ask for extra money to provide them after, which would cause a customer to not pay for the product in the first place, hence misleading).
This is the aspect of misleading business practices, which in combination with the demands of what sales of goods have to provide to be under law in the EU leads to crowdfunding being a goods-based exchange. They never were the wild wild west, since the EU exists they’re bound by laws, it has never been a different case.
They just weren’t named directly as it was a newer practice, but always applicable under exchange of goods. ‘You give me money and I’ll give you a key for access’ is a exchange of goods. Had it solely been ‘we wanna make this, please donate’ without return then it would be donation-based and hence no terms would apply.
But that wasn’t the case, and isn’t the case for 99,9% of all product projects in crowdfunding still.
All fair and good.
But… weren’t kickstarter people not promised 3 end-game mechanics (not including arean or dungeons… but 3 full end-game mechanics?)
I mentioned that already beforehand that this does not apply to the people backing.
For the backer it makes no difference as they have full access anyway.
But a change in pricing which does affect a backer and not a follow-up customer it does indeed apply to them.
Because you can only bat an eye and sue legally if you’re affected.
Is anyone affected if they’re not applicable to it?
As for free access… is anyone damaged by not having free access? They didn’t pay, hence there is no damage. Hence there is nothing to sue for 
The second, though the reasoning is not pride, it’s principle.
If you allow misleading business practices to not be punished then you allow companies to use this as a normalized business practice.
This means any future product you buy can willy-nilly change their pricing methods. Pay shelf-price and be promised no other payments further? No issue, let us just change it into subscription fees on top after half a year! For example… it’s the same premise, just more outrageous even.
The precedence allows companies to lean into it and test the legal limits.
Which UI? If you mean the MG UI, then they’re slowly getting to it. If you mean any other UI, then yes. They’ve worked on it and added UI scaling, which was often requested. I’m not aware of any other UI issues.
“Have the dungeons been changed in a way that I like them?”. Fixed it for you.
There have always been people that like dungeons as they are. So what is “dungeons fixed”? Because if you ask 3 players what they think you’ll get 5 different answers.
You don’t need that many (although Judd did say their ambition is to become the top ARPG, so probably more than that). You just need the ones that join to actually spend on MTX, which apparently they didn’t do enough.
You mean other than friends of backers that weren’t allowed to try out the game? You likely have plenty of backers that wanted to convince their friends to join and were hurt in that by them not being able to try out for free, despite that being promised.
1 Like
ALL of them actually 
You click through em. They overlap. The are off-center for clicking.
Not even talking MG specific… which is still not even the barebones. Can you search for free affix-slots for example? Which is a important basis of decision? But that’s besides the point anyway.
If you’re not aware of them I’m fairly baffled. Open the filter UI and click around… your character moves.
Open the idol enchanting and the stash… the idol UI overlaps with the expanded stash tabs (the side overview for quick-switching).
There’s a ton of those issues and they’re very very long-standing by now.
Nope… really… I mean that as I mean it.
The dungeons were called out to be ‘barebones and lackluster’.
The fundamental setup is not enjoyable for the vast majority of people. It’s not like the PoE lab which just isn’t a style many people enjoy… but it’s simply ‘bare’.
And there’s people which like eating shit… does that mean it should be normalized hence?
Then maybe provide MTX to spend your damn money on?
‘Bohooo… they didn’t spend enough on MTX! Whyever is that shield players don’t buy our shield MTX when we have a whole 2 of them available for em?’ ‘Why don’t they buy one of our 2 footstep effects when both of them are miniscule dots on the ground you can barely see?’ ‘Why don’t they buy our skill effects when the majority doesn’t even have one?’
Oh woe those poor poor developers!
Yes, which isn’t applicable by law though.
A bummer, but sadly nothing to be enforced there. It should be plainly spoken and you’re 100% right! But it’s a mess to bring into a legal state.
It’s indirect damage and has a miniscule weight still.
I haven’t seen that happen at all. The only overlap is your inventory when you’re in the weaver tree, but that is necessary so you can place the items you want.
Maybe it’s a resolution issue and my resolution works fine?
The fundamental setup of arena is not enjoyable for the vast majority of people. Does it need “fixing” as well?
How is lab not “bare” as well? It’s basically the same thing. In fact, it’s exactly the same thing in that everyone that runs the lab just checks the layout so they can get out of there as soon as possible. They just want the end reward and are forced to run the middle bit which no one enjoys.
This I agree with. MTX outside of the latest supporter packs are kinda meh.
1 Like
Do you have a mandatory need to use it like you do with Temporal Sanctum?
No?
Here is your answer then.
It wasn’t even the case before the weaver tree allowing you to drop the rewards from it, but the premise has changed, at best you got a bit of a power-boost from the rewards there. Hence ‘no’.
How? Really? Is that an actual question?
You got 2 reward systems in lab, chests + the fountain or whatever it is for the gem-rewards (formerly enchantments).
You have several systems in place to increase the reward-count of the chest reward. Hence killing/not killing ads for example and others. You also got a side-boss which needs to be searched for to improve the rewards, already giving a choice between rushing or min-maxing rewards.
Then you also got the ability to search for secret areas which change the core aspects of the lab, like disabling traps in the bossfight or providing specific permanent buffs for the whole lab duration.
Then further on you got the traps, which are a distinct function of the lab itself. Increasing in difficulty the higher the level of the lab is. From ‘you won’t even have any in the way’ to actual deadly skill-based ones you need to overcome. Also in different flavors. We got spikes, we got flying serrated discs, we got guided sawblades on the ground, we got hard-hitting blades in a fixed position which need timing. Decent variety hence and at times combines, especially with AoE totems which cause you do adjust your approach.
And you’re comparing it with… a area that is the exact same as any monolith area with a fixed singular layout but solely having RNG barriers in place to change the course. That’s all the difference there is per dungeon.
The gimmicks are changing defenses in Soulfire bastion… which has a single trap related to it at the start to showcase the function and then at the boss-room. No segments which needs switching em, solely enemies which do different types of damage… and with normal res-cap can be entirely ignored too.
Then we got Lightless Arbour… which plainly spoken… I have absolutely no clue what the light does for the 2 mob-stages. Is there any reason to remove it from you ever there? The only places are the bonfires to enkindle, which is once showcased on the way and at the boss-fight. Once more nothing to work with there functionally for the dungeon areas itself hence.
Temporal Sanctum is just a double-layered labyrinth, that’s it. The most interesting… with the most dumbed down mechanic possible. No puzzles which change stuff in the ruined area by adjusting things in the divine era, having to combine that to provide extra rewards or a way forward. Just 2 different sets of mobs… and I think it’s 3 per timeline? So a total of 6 mob-types? Which are also existing in Monoliths?
I mean… plainly spoken… piss off with the comparison there. I know you mean well there… but if you wanna be screwed over by the barest of minimums of execution just to excuse ‘we’ve done something’ then that’s entirely your problem. Basics standards can be expected.
And yet despite all those choices, every lab farmer will always rush to the end because it’s much more effective than to waste time looking for extra stuff.
There aren’t options. They’re noob traps. New players will run around looking for them (and risking dying before reaching the end), older players will know to ignore them completely.
Unless you do what every lab farmer does which is use a build that 100% ignores any trap and simply run over them as if they were plain floor.
I’m only comparing the fact that almost no player in either game will enjoy running either mechanic.
It doesn’t matter if you create the most elaborate mechanic if your players don’t like running it. And PoE players don’t like running labs in the same exact way LE players don’t like running dungeons.
In fact, I’d be willing to bet that if GGG implemented the equivalent of portal charms to be able to just jump to the last Izaro fight, 99.99% of players would use it.
Because, just like there are a dozen people that enjoy running LE dungeons, there are a dozen people that enjoy running PoE labs.
So considering that labs, just like dungeons “have a mandatory need to use it” (even more so in PoE than in LE) and that no one likes them, do labs need “fixing”?
Balance issue, not content issue.
Also the key-strat is a better one very early in a league because of the quality and leveled gems.
But still besides the point… EHG’s labs are a content issue, not a balance one. GGG can make lab wildly profitable in 5 minutes solely by changing the quantity of rewards from side chests and the reward chests at the end.
Can EHG do that with the content of their dungeons? The whole rewards are based upon the end-result, right? So they threw lizards in to at least not make it utter nonsense. But is there a single mechanic present which does have a significant potential impact?
I mean… the doors could… but they were already barely viable when it was freshly implemented.
Dunno… I know a few lab farmers.
It’s like saying ‘nobody likes Heist’ when there’s a good chunk of Heist farmers.
I know the difference between ‘it’s just a shit mechanic for how it’s made’ versus ‘this thing needs a specific mindset to enjoy but isn’t badly designed per-se’.
We can say arena is decent designed by now, it works, it isn’t ‘lackluster’ anymore after the different types of Arenas have been implemented. So ok-ish. But dungeons? They’re not using their own mechanics outside of the bossfight. I mean… come on… it’s the least needed.
And no, labs like arena do not need fixing. The ascendancy shouldn’t be in labs of PoE I personally say as it’s a core progression element forced behind a side-content (much like the ultimatum or sanctum in PoE 2)… but the mechanics directly don’t need it.
If no one likes it, few people will be farming it. Which means that it’s profitable. So the few people that like it can run it for profit. And even if you don’t like it that much, you can still make an effective build for it (like one that ignores all traps) and run it for profit even if you don’t enjoy it that much.
Because greed is also a factor.
Besides, players still complaint even with portal charms that let you just have a boss fight to slam legendaries. If you make the dungeon mechanic more convoluted/challenging, even more people will complain.
Personally, I think EHG’s solution was a step in the right direction and one that GGG should also adopt. Namely, being able to jump over all that nonsense and just jump directly to the needed reward.
Or, alternatively, if you actually enjoy it, fill it with stuff (currently only lizards, but there’s potential to add other stufF).
Therein lies one of the problems:
What does the average consumer expects when backing a video game in development?
That monetization never changes if the business models will turn out to be unsustainable?
The risk is disclosed, albeit vague on the consequences.
For example, a box price of $14.99 was given in the context of a plan, not as a guarantee. The average consumer will understand that inflation is a thing, thus an increase in price has to be expected.
An average consumer (in the scope of the target audience, so an adult video gamer) is expected to be reasonably well-informed (e.g. I know I back a product in development, I don’t buy a finished game), reasonably observant (lack of revenue from cosmetic MTX is a risk, this wasn’t fine print), and reasonably circumspect (inflation, reliance on constant cash flow).
If you ask me, a reasonable person cannot have the expectation that in an iterative creative development process, nothing will change as development goes on - scope, features, etc. - or that estimated delivery dates can be upheld.
The average, reasonable consumer isn’t naive and oblivious to basic market realities.
You run into the issue of proportionate actions of a company conducting their business. I think it’s highly unlikely that a court will find, given all the information out there, that EHG would have to go bankrupt and not be allowed to charge money for an expansion to save their business.
Your expectation and hope that EHG fails as a company isn’t proportionate.
1 Like
I think EHG will be reading Kulze’s EU law breakdown pretty closely before asking their lawyer to read it as well lol
1 Like
The state the game is in is the best ARPG out there. And you don’t need to announce to the world you aren’t buying something.
Oh come on… that’s not even a basis to provide content on.
If we go by that metric we can make a single button saying ‘you win’ and that’s it.
There’s got to be a limit clearly. And bypassing content because the content is bad is not good design. You can create content few people like… but simply skipping it? Nonsensical.
‘Oh yes, underwater levels are disliked by players… just let people skip it entirely!’
The point is that people don’t enjoy it because it is bare and lizards won’t change the fundamental part that… it still is bare! I mean… you can populate it with stuff from monoliths until it basically feels like monoliths… but that kinda isn’t the point now to create diverse content, is it?
It actually doesn’t matter that it’s a developed product. A crowdfunding page provides the results which are supposed to happen, hence that’s the expectation.
Not adherring to that to the dot is a leeway which software developers already have because software development can become messy and a bit unpredictable to realize the scale. But that’s a upside for their sector unlike most others enjoy for a reason.
Absolutely right! And I don’t know how friggin often I have to repeat ‘doesn’t apply to the backer hence it’s not legally binding’ while also having to repeat ‘if you haven’t yet bought into a product you have no pre-existing contract’ which hence allows to make price changes. While also having to showcase seemingly that any company is allowed to adjust pricing related to inflation and overall state of the business sector and that’s within allowed parameters of the law (it is even directly stated inside the EU law that this is a allowed adjustment).
Let’s split that up.
First of all, reasonably well informed. Sure, unfinished… so? Does that change the end-result which was told you’ll receive?
Heck… a company is creating a new car and you get to buy one early, your corwdfund backing is also a pre-order for it! Now… if it doesn’t come with the proclaimed features, are you allowed to refund?
The EU says ‘yes’. I don’t care about outside, doesn’t apply to me, EHG decided to do business in the EU area, hence they have to heed the law for doing business.
Reasonably observant:
So, despite a magnitude of people buying the product for shelf-price which could reasonably be expected to happen the risk of low MTX sales broke it?
That notion is disgusting as it cannot reasonably apply. If your MTX sales are too low then that means your MTX simply is shit. If the MTX is fine then the game is shit. And worst-case? Both are shit. That’s it.
Loads of people play the game but few buy MTX? MTX = shit hence.
It didn’t matter if they had 500 players or 500000… they would’ve failed anyway to this degree. There is no ‘winning with more people’ as the scaling of system shouldn’t come down to more costs but less per player.
If the current numbers don’t suffice then we have a serious problem and it’s a failed system pre-execution already.
Scope by law is only allowed to increase after the contract is signed, not to decrease.
You cannot sell (yes, it’s still a sale) for example a car with a radio, AC, USB support, navigation and seat-heating and then scale down to only include a radio. That’s not legally allowed and cause for a full refund by the way.
Really? The average customer definitely is… and nobody included ‘reasonable’ into the law. We’re talking about a common below 100 IQ customer as it doesn’t even take into consideration even spread but counts the majority.
If a 80 IQ person cannot expect it then it is outside of the scope of the law.
Wouldn’t be the first company… wouldn’t be the last.
Ideally you wouldn’t place a water level in the first place. But once you do, if you’re not willing to remove it, then yeah, you should let people skip it.
So if you place important mechanics (like legendary slamming, ascendancies or alternate gems) behind a mechanic that most people dislike, then might as well just let you skip it.
For PoE you could make the argument that at least the ones that like it (or are, at least, willing to suffer through it) can farm it and sell it for people that don’t want to run it. Although that falls apart as soon as ascendancies are involved.
For LE it’s even more appropriate, since there’s no real market for selling legendaries. So when you’re running Julra you’re doing it for yourself. So might as well just skip to the boss when you’re gonna be running it 20 times in a season, as opposed to hundreds or thousands of times for lab farmers.
Why would you populate it only with stuff from monoliths? Why not create one that will add challenges and also rewards? Obvious examples would be to add traps, but that is too PoE. But you can add whatever you want.
Charm that adds a memory game and rewards you with an extra slam.
Charm that adds x10 density and rewards you with an extra guaranteed affix.
etc.
You can basically add whatever you want. There’s really no limit and it will make dungeons feel different running them with different charms.
Which under modern realizations of psychology actually have returned heavier then before.
The realization that product standards are held related to the best and the worst experience given is something quite important. This is why a small fraction of gameplay quite often ‘sucks’ plainly spoken, and in a mandatory place as well. Often included in the campaign or during progression after already heavily roping players in.
A masterpiece of execution for example was Monster Hunter Tri with the underwater fight. Everyone hated it… and everyone loved all other parts of the game more because of it.
But that’s higher psychology in regards to game design, just wanna mention it existing.
Depends on repetition rate, time-investment and how mandatory it is.
That the LP slamming is there is the issue, not that the dungeons are unliked. Repeatedly forced playthroughs of unwanted content are a net negative and have to be avoided, which is why in PoE 1 and PoE 2 the ascendancy is far more acceptable then the Temporal Sanctum in LE.
Which are still a one-time thing only though. You get inside once and then have it forever. Which removes the ‘repeption’ part.
But I agree it shouldn’t be there in the first place anyway, more then enough content which also applies to not be massively enjoyable to create the above mentioned psychological impact for perception. Though it was created when there was nothing else similar, just hasn’t been adjusted yet.
Which is a 100% failing of EHG’s setup for trade, not the willigness of the playerbase or even how reasonable it would be to have that happen.
Because that’s the current case? If not then we wouldn’t have this argument as it wouldn’t apply now, would it? If work went into the dungeons which is specifically catered to make the dungeons a different experience which isn’t ‘bare’ then it wouldn’t be a discussion point.
And charms don’t do shit… one skips, one populates with existing stuff. There is no difference to content related to the core game hence. They don’t change content… they implement commonly seen content and they remove content, that’s it. So one makes it same-y compared to Monolith and the other just makes it ‘not there’
Also the density + reward one wouldn’t change anything. It would still feel bare.
Mechanical difference is what causes it to be fixed, but the only mechanics unique to them are utterly underperforming and underdeveloped.
4 times per character, actually. Plus however many you have to run it if you need an alternate gem for your build (like I did the last time I played PoE).
So not that different from LE in that regard, except that you can’t just skip to the boss and have to actually run the lab over and over again until you land the gem you need.
I disagree with this. If you had a room with 100 mobs and you couldn’t take 2 steps without encountering several packs, that would change it quite a bit.
It’s actually no different from ritual or breach in PoE, where the basic mechanic is “let’s spawn dozens of mobs in a small space”, except it’s spread to the whole level.
Increasing difficulty, so basically still ‘one time and done’ just for each.
Unlike LP which is repeated for a unknown amount of time.
Well… nowadays ixed for 1 LP, and fixed for 4 LP, but 2 and 3 not (which is so odd to write by itself already).
And yes, but a massive wave-style gameplay would still not change the core premise. I get what you mean, doesn’t change it mechanically though. It does indeed change something… namely that the client would crash since it has only gotten to barely handle the core gameplay without major issues since a decently short while (freezes were rather common a while ago still, for whatever reason, not going into it).
And Ritual? Limited Arena size? Mechanical difference as you’re locked in, also the follow-up is mechanically different.
Breach? Expanding arena which allows to attack from outside and enemies to disappear beyond the area again until reappearing only when the arena reaches their position? Also mechanically different indeed.
As mentioned, if the mechanics of the dungeons would actually be used more in line with the overall need to progress through it then sure, agreed… but that’s not the case. The closest exception is Temporal Sanctum and even that is just a layout switch without anything else. The least viable method to implement it at all
Again, unless you need an alternate gem, which you keep ignoring. In which case you could be doing it dozens of times, since it’s RNG based which one you’ll get.
4LP was always guaranteed. And that is because you’ll usually only find 4LP on lower level uniques, which are less useful for most builds.
I expect next season we’ll see improvements on that, considering they’re increasing filters to 200 rules.
DIRECTIVE 2005/29/EC
this Directive takes as a benchmark the average consumer, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors, as interpreted by the Court of Justice
Yes, and ‘reasonably’ in that case is that they know the basis of the basis. Which means they’re not prone to be directly scammed.
Reasonably informed means they know the game isn’t finished yet.
Reasonably informed means they know that delays in the sector happen frequently (which is why no backlash happens commonly, which is revoked gradually though)
Reasonably informed is that they know what the heck a diablo-like game even is and hence what they buy into.
That’s the ‘reasonably’ which you get under the definition of the law, buying into stuff at least knowing what you’re buying into. It’s not going along to study the history of the company or the workers in the company or even what specific things they did since they started to exist.
Edit:
I want to add a bit to that.
‘Reasonably’ in the terms of the law dictates that it is likely to happen and hence has to be taken into consideration.
In terms of customers it is reasonable to expect that a customer has experienced a livestream where a promise was made. It’s not a guarantee… but the company has to act accordingly to uphold what information they provide publicly.
It’s also reasonable to expect that unless it’s shoved into the face of a customer and obligations which are following upon receiving a product (whatever that might entail) will be missed otherwise, as it’s reasonable to expect a customer to forego anything but direct interaction with the product (hence why in games changes are often showcased upon starting the game, either via a launcher or in the title screen with a prompt).
That’s the type of ‘reasonable’ we’re working with here. It’s likely it happens but it is not mandatory. Hence related to responsibilities of any kind it is always in favor of the claimant if the claimant is a private individual and always against the favor if it’s a company in the EU.
Why? Because a individual is not expected to be reasonably versed in law. A company is mandated to be though.