Another person that fails at reading comprehension. I never claimed it couldn't be done, I said 'YOU DON'T DESERVE IT.'
You are still claiming that you know better than both the EU and the UK government. Which is what my post was about. Really, move your massive ego out of my thread.
Now let's look at the playable races available at the RMT shop: Ferengi: "These Captains begin with the Natural Immunities (40% resistance to Toxic Damage, 40% resistance to Radiation Damage) and Acute Senses (20% improvement to Stealth Sight, 10% bonus to Exploit Damage) traits. They may choose two additional traits." Klingon: "These Captains begin with the Warrior (5% improvement to Ranged Weapon Damage, 10% percent improvement to Physical Melee Damage, 10% improvement to Critical Severity) and Honorable (5% resistance to all damage, 10% improvement to Threat Rating) traits. They may choose two additional traits."
1) Natural Immunities and Acute Senses are available as options for the "Alien" custom race, meaning your only paying to have your head look like a butt.
2) Warrior and Honorable are somewhat more of a grey area in that they are Klingon specific (though Alien offers nearly identical abilities with slighly lower bonus percentages), but means these abilities are technically aquirable in game... your not paying to play a Klingon, you can already do that, your paying to play a Klingon in a diffrent faction. How you view this depends on how you want to nitpick. For my part since no other mainstream MMO with factional PvP that I can think of has any mechnism for cross-faction racial play, personally I don't see this as unfair... and based on the fact of the situation I would view using this as the basis of a fraud case... as fraud... particularly since I very much doubt that anyone who is now launching a charge dispute through their credit card company is doing so because they have to pay for use of Warrior and Honorable on the Federation side. In fact I'm relatively sure that anyone who buy Federation Klingon, bought them for purely cosmetic reasons, not because they JUST HAD to have Warrior and Honorable on the Federation side for gameplay reasons.
I'll adopt your phrase for this response if you don't mind; You deserve a refund on something you 'don't use'? Complete BS, you buy something and realize you either don't have a use for it or just forgot about it you don't deserve your money back at all. You deserve a refund on a new DVD with a huge scratch on it? Complete BS. You deserve a replacement DVD without a scratch on it, you already chose to make the purchase of the product, sometimes these things happen and products are damaged. You deserve a refund on a sub-par music CD from a band that's usually good? Complete BS. They did what they do, make music. Just because it's not to your taste and you 'think' it's sub-par doesn't entitle you to your money back. Learn to make informed purchases, think before you buy. It's not difficult.
Another person who thinks that they know better than their own government.
It is THE LAW, man. Face it, you're wrong.
Another person that fails at reading comprehension.
I never claimed it couldn't be done, I said 'YOU DON'T DESERVE IT.'
And who made you the arbiter on what people do or do not deserve?
I find this attitude "quite crying, you're a bad consumer, you deserve to pay for the bad product" to be very odd and quite moronic. If consumers shouldn't have any rights, then how are companies supposed to learn from their mistakes? The consumer's power to purchase or not purchase from a company is how the vaunted system of capitalism works. Thus, bad companies die, and good companies flourish.
But then again, I think everyone here saying "YOU DON'T DESERVE IT" would be singing a far different tune if the tables were turned and they were on the recieving end.
Another person that fails at reading comprehension. I never claimed it couldn't be done, I said 'YOU DON'T DESERVE IT.'
You are still claiming that you know better than both the EU and the UK government. Which is what my post was about. Really, move your massive ego out of my thread.
And for the record I am better than my government, which is the whole reason my government passes consumer protection laws in the first place and assumes won't abuse them to the point where the government has to crack down and pass the advantage back to the merchants... because >>YOU DIDN'T LIKE<< a video game.
And for the record I am better than my government, which is the whole reason my government passes consumer protection laws in the first place and assumes won't abuse them to the point where the government has to crack down and pass the advantage back to the merchants... because >>YOU DIDN'T LIKE<< a video game.
You do realise that all merchants and businesses commit small scale fraud, don't you?
Stuff like managers "hiring" their wives for £5k a year because that's untaxable?
What I'm suggest in this thread isn't even fraud, it's merely people utilising their consumer rights to get something worthwhile out of a product.
The company can bite you back occasionally if the interpretation of the features was within reason. Say you insisted you couldn't do something yet you could, just only to a extent. As long as they can argue its part true they win. In which case your hit with the false charge fee lol.
Incorrect. I work for a merchant service company. the card holder never is charged a "false" charge. They just lose the case. And, they can re-issue the same chargeback up to 3 times in 3 months. You're wrong. Never is the card holder held accountable, even when they lose. The merchant however (Cryptic in this case) will still be charged the chargeback assessment fee, even is they win.
I use to deliver pizza. As anyone that works at a pizza joint knows, you can only successfully bake a pizza with so many toppings. If you pile on 15 toppings, your pizza will not bake all the way.
You can also only "Well Done" a pizza so much. It seems pretty common sense to me that if you run a pizza through the oven so many times it will get burned.
Many, many times in my life as the pizza boy, customers would ask for these things. I would always say "Sir, Its not going to come out right, You will not like it"
Ofcourse, the pizza is totally FUBAR and they want their money back. Do you think they deserve their money back after being informed of the consequence of their choice?
I'll adopt your phrase for this response if you don't mind; You deserve a refund on something you 'don't use'? Complete BS, you buy something and realize you either don't have a use for it or just forgot about it you don't deserve your money back at all. You deserve a refund on a new DVD with a huge scratch on it? Complete BS. You deserve a replacement DVD without a scratch on it, you already chose to make the purchase of the product, sometimes these things happen and products are damaged. You deserve a refund on a sub-par music CD from a band that's usually good? Complete BS. They did what they do, make music. Just because it's not to your taste and you 'think' it's sub-par doesn't entitle you to your money back. Learn to make informed purchases, think before you buy. It's not difficult.
Another person who thinks that they know better than their own government.
It is THE LAW, man. Face it, you're wrong.
Another person that fails at reading comprehension.
I never claimed it couldn't be done, I said 'YOU DON'T DESERVE IT.'
And who made you the arbiter on what people do or do not deserve?
I find this attitude "quite crying, you're a bad consumer, you deserve to pay for the bad product" to be very odd and quite moronic. If consumers shouldn't have any rights, then how are companies supposed to learn from their mistakes? The consumer's power to purchase or not purchase from a company is how the vaunted system of capitalism works. Thus, bad companies die, and good companies flourish.
But then again, I think everyone here saying "YOU DON'T DESERVE IT" would be singing a far different tune if the tables were turned and they were on the recieving end.
I could turn that question right around on you, but I won't.
I'm entitled to my opinion as are you.
I decide what I think is right and wrong, what people deserve and don't deserve - Whether I can actually do anything about it other than voice my opinion is another matter entirely.
All I'm trying to say is that if people gave an ounce of thought into things and did a bit of research first we wouldn't have threads like this.
I'll adopt your phrase for this response if you don't mind; You deserve a refund on something you 'don't use'? Complete BS, you buy something and realize you either don't have a use for it or just forgot about it you don't deserve your money back at all. You deserve a refund on a new DVD with a huge scratch on it? Complete BS. You deserve a replacement DVD without a scratch on it, you already chose to make the purchase of the product, sometimes these things happen and products are damaged. You deserve a refund on a sub-par music CD from a band that's usually good? Complete BS. They did what they do, make music. Just because it's not to your taste and you 'think' it's sub-par doesn't entitle you to your money back. Learn to make informed purchases, think before you buy. It's not difficult.
Another person who thinks that they know better than their own government.
It is THE LAW, man. Face it, you're wrong.
Another person that fails at reading comprehension.
I never claimed it couldn't be done, I said 'YOU DON'T DESERVE IT.'
And who made you the arbiter on what people do or do not deserve?
I find this attitude "quite crying, you're a bad consumer, you deserve to pay for the bad product" to be very odd and quite moronic. If consumers shouldn't have any rights, then how are companies supposed to learn from their mistakes? The consumer's power to purchase or not purchase from a company is how the vaunted system of capitalism works. Thus, bad companies die, and good companies flourish.
But then again, I think everyone here saying "YOU DON'T DESERVE IT" would be singing a far different tune if the tables were turned and they were on the recieving end.
I could turn that question right around on you, but I won't.
I'm entitled to my opinion as are you.
I decide what I think is right and wrong, what people deserve and don't deserve - Whether I can actually do anything about it other than voice my opinion is another matter entirely.
All I'm trying to say is that if people gave an ounce of thought into things and did a bit of research first we wouldn't have threads like this.
And if companies started selling products instead of hype we wouldn't have threads like this. So...
Another person that fails at reading comprehension. I never claimed it couldn't be done, I said 'YOU DON'T DESERVE IT.'
You are still claiming that you know better than both the EU and the UK government. Which is what my post was about. Really, move your massive ego out of my thread.
Just because I think you don't deserve a refund doesn't say that I claim to know better than both the EU and the UK government.
I also don't think people deserve the death sentence in many places worldwide doesn't mean I think I know better, I just don't agree.
Learn from your mistake and don't make the same one again. That's life.
I could turn that question right around on you, but I won't. I'm entitled to my opinion as are you. I decide what I think is right and wrong, what people deserve and don't deserve - Whether I can actually do anything about it other than voice my opinion is another matter entirely. All I'm trying to say is that if people gave an ounce of thought into things and did a bit of research first we wouldn't have threads like this.
Yes, maybe you should. On this, the law is in favour of the consumer, your opinion is worthless since it does not alter the facts. If we do not deserve to get the money back, why do we get it so?
What ever happened to people actually, you know, finding out what they're buying before they pay for something? There was ample opportunity to try the game before you bought.
Now there are people trying to come up with lies and other ways to weasel out of their purchase? Whatever happened to morals and honesty?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
What ever happened to people actually, you know, finding out what they're buying before they pay for something? There was ample opportunity to try the game before you bought. Now there are people trying to come up with lies and other ways to weasel out of their purchase? Whatever happened to morals and honesty?
Believe it or not, there is a guy on the offiicial forums complaining because the game doesn't allow you to play offline. At first I thought he was just joking but he was serious. He was whining because he only has Dial up and can't keep a connection so he thinks Cryptic should make the game available offline, otherwise he wants his monney back.This is the mentality of a lot of people and frankly it's sad.
Not spreading falsities or do I care where you pretend to work.
I had an issue with a fradulent charge from a web-site. I contacted my bank. They gave me the money back instantly while they were investigating it. I could use that money, it was in no state of limbo at any point. At some point along the investigation the website convinced the bank the charge was valid. The Bank then sided with the website and removed the money back from my account (was over a month later).
You are misinformed and think you know more then you do.
So to reiterate:
Most banks/CC companies will instantly give the money back while investigating. Later when the investigation is finished the bank/CC company can retake the money/recharge the account. The bank/CC company never has to tell you when it sided with the company or you. It also is not required to give you an explanation of why.
O.K. --- a lot of misinformation about this subject.
Here is a link to the what the Attorney General for California has to say on the subject:
While it might vary a bit depending on where you live... the gist is this:
There are two categories recognized by federal and state law under which you can resist payment, and these are known as "billing errors" and "claims and defenses".
The types of "billing errors" include: (3) Charges for goods or services different from what was represented...
If you get your letter challenging the charge to your bank within the 60 day period , you need not meet any other condition.
You need not make any attempt to resolve the dispute with the merchant, and you can assert a billing error even if you have already paid your credit card balance down to zero.
If the claim is determined by the card issuing bank to be valid, it will issue a credit to your account for the amount claimed.
If the card issuing bank finds your claim to be invalid, you may wish to contact your own bank to see if they will help.
In the event your bank denies your request and you believe that you have satisfied all of the required conditions, you can file or make a complaint with the Attorney General's Office website.
Clearly in favor of the customer. It's really in the interest of a merchant to make sure the customer is satisfied and happy.
Here is also a link to MasterCard's merchant policy regarding charge-backs and other policies... it's 542 pages:
The charge-back feature is indeed a viable feature that customers have to get their money back if they are displeased with the merchandise. The bank may indeed deem the charge-back invalid... then the charge still applies. The merchant may indeed re-issue the fee... which in turn can be disputed once again.
The only way a customer is going to get a "black mark" on their credit rating is if they repeatedly abuse the charge-back feature. It is there for the precise reason of a customer feeling that they received a product that was not what they were expecting. Merchants that accept CC's know this and willingly accept the policies that go with them.
From the perspective of the merchant trying to avoid charge-backs this site advertising their product was an interesting read:
What ever happened to people actually, you know, finding out what they're buying before they pay for something? There was ample opportunity to try the game before you bought. Now there are people trying to come up with lies and other ways to weasel out of their purchase? Whatever happened to morals and honesty?
If mmo companies had any morals or honesty they wouldn't grossly overhype their products before launch and give refunds merely because the customer isn't happy with the product, as so many other industries do.
Some people have to weasel out of their purchase because the companies give them no option to behave honestly.
I'll adopt your phrase for this response if you don't mind; You deserve a refund on something you 'don't use'? Complete BS, you buy something and realize you either don't have a use for it or just forgot about it you don't deserve your money back at all. You deserve a refund on a new DVD with a huge scratch on it? Complete BS. You deserve a replacement DVD without a scratch on it, you already chose to make the purchase of the product, sometimes these things happen and products are damaged. You deserve a refund on a sub-par music CD from a band that's usually good? Complete BS. They did what they do, make music. Just because it's not to your taste and you 'think' it's sub-par doesn't entitle you to your money back. Learn to make informed purchases, think before you buy. It's not difficult.
Another person who thinks that they know better than their own government.
It is THE LAW, man. Face it, you're wrong.
Another person that fails at reading comprehension.
I never claimed it couldn't be done, I said 'YOU DON'T DESERVE IT.'
And who made you the arbiter on what people do or do not deserve?
I find this attitude "quite crying, you're a bad consumer, you deserve to pay for the bad product" to be very odd and quite moronic. If consumers shouldn't have any rights, then how are companies supposed to learn from their mistakes? The consumer's power to purchase or not purchase from a company is how the vaunted system of capitalism works. Thus, bad companies die, and good companies flourish.
But then again, I think everyone here saying "YOU DON'T DESERVE IT" would be singing a far different tune if the tables were turned and they were on the recieving end.
I could turn that question right around on you, but I won't.
I'm entitled to my opinion as are you.
I decide what I think is right and wrong, what people deserve and don't deserve - Whether I can actually do anything about it other than voice my opinion is another matter entirely.
All I'm trying to say is that if people gave an ounce of thought into things and did a bit of research first we wouldn't have threads like this.
Laws are designed to favour the consumer. Why? One very huge reason: corporations make far more money and are far more powerful than the average consumer.
Cryptic could potentially make millions of dollars a year off of Star Trek Online alone. I can't even begin to match that kind of earning power, so if I have a dispute with Cryptic they would utterly crush me in a world without laws designed to protect the consumer.
You seem to think that a few dozen people using chargebacks to not pay for a product they aren't satisfied with will do damage to a multi-million dollar company.
Not to mention that if said companies deliver a product that is substandard or not as advertised, shouldn't they feel the consequences of those actions?
I'd hate to live in a world that you think is good and right.
What ever happened to people actually, you know, finding out what they're buying before they pay for something? There was ample opportunity to try the game before you bought. Now there are people trying to come up with lies and other ways to weasel out of their purchase? Whatever happened to morals and honesty?
Probably because some people were harping on and on about how amazing and great the product in question was. See, some people are actively damaging other people through mindless fanboyism.
Not spreading falsities or do I care where you pretend to work.
I had an issue with a fradulent charge from a web-site. I contacted my bank. They gave me the money back instantly while they were investigating it. I could use that money, it was in no state of limbo at any point. At some point along the investigation the website convinced the bank the charge was valid. The Bank then sided with the website and removed the money back from my account (was over a month later).
You are misinformed and think you know more then you do.
So to reiterate:
Most banks/CC companies will instantly give the money back while investigating. Later when the investigation is finished the bank/CC company can retake the money/recharge the account. The bank/CC company never has to tell you when it sided with the company or you. It also is not required to give you an explanation of why.
O.K. --- a lot of misinformation about this subject.
Here is a link to the what the Attorney General for California has to say on the subject:
While it might vary a bit depending on where you live... the gist is this:
There are two categories recognized by federal and state law under which you can resist payment, and these are known as "billing errors" and "claims and defenses".
The types of "billing errors" include: (3) Charges for goods or services different from what was represented...
If you get your letter challenging the charge to your bank within the 60 day period , you need not meet any other condition.
You need not make any attempt to resolve the dispute with the merchant, and you can assert a billing error even if you have already paid your credit card balance down to zero.
If the claim is determined by the card issuing bank to be valid, it will issue a credit to your account for the amount claimed.
If the card issuing bank finds your claim to be invalid, you may wish to contact your own bank to see if they will help.
In the event your bank denies your request and you believe that you have satisfied all of the required conditions, you can file or make a complaint with the Attorney General's Office website.
Clearly in favor of the customer. It's really in the interest of a merchant to make sure the customer is satisfied and happy.
Here is also a link to MasterCard's merchant policy regarding charge-backs and other policies... it's 542 pages:
The charge-back feature is indeed a viable feature that customers have to get their money back if they are displeased with the merchandise. The bank may indeed deem the charge-back invalid... then the charge still applies. The merchant may indeed re-issue the fee... which in turn can be disputed once again.
The only way a customer is going to get a "black mark" on their credit rating is if they repeatedly abuse the charge-back feature. It is there for the precise reason of a customer feeling that they received a product that was not what they were expecting. Merchants that accept CC's know this and willingly accept the policies that go with them.
From the perspective of the merchant trying to avoid charge-backs this site advertising their product was an interesting read:
Merchants are assumed to be in the wrong whenever a customer requests a chargeback.
Chargebacks are a potentially devastating force for any online merchant and must be treated seriously.
Chargebacks definitely are not fair to the merchant who has acted out of good faith. However, the power generally lies with the customer.
Hopefully those sites above should give everyone who wants it the informaiton they need to determine the truth about charge-backs.
Thank you, finally some cited truth on the matter.
Also, it seems that SnarlingWolf's story was completely made up after all. Fraudulent charges always favour the card-holder, as I've been saying the entire time.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by grapevine
Originally posted by Dawnherald
Originally posted by grapevine
That is utter garbage. They did not remove the feature and you can indeed make your own species/race. In general though (re. the thread), given I've not been looking at this site for a while. Its good to see it hasn't changed. Troll and haters heaven, not matter the game. You guys are a joke, seriously.
However, it wasn't in in beta, so it was pretty much impossible to know, for those of us who got out as early as possible.
Yes it was in Beta. Both closed and open. Clearly you "got out" without even knowning the game and just jumped to conclusions. Mostly likely already made up before even loging in.
It is like buying an Action movie and trying to take it back because it turned out to be a period romantic drama.
Being informed is not just a responsiblity but also the onus is on the customer to be fully aware of what they are purchasing.
In this case it looks like we see someone who never made the purchase, who was not informed and is now what?
That is utter garbage. They did not remove the feature and you can indeed make your own species/race. In general though (re. the thread), given I've not been looking at this site for a while. Its good to see it hasn't changed. Troll and haters heaven, not matter the game. You guys are a joke, seriously.
However, it wasn't in in beta, so it was pretty much impossible to know, for those of us who got out as early as possible.
Yes it was in Beta. Both closed and open. Clearly you "got out" without even knowning the game and just jumped to conclusions. Mostly likely already made up before even loging in.
It is like buying an Action movie and trying to take it back because it turned out to be a period romantic drama.
Being informed is not just a responsiblity but also the onus is on the customer to be fully aware of what they are purchasing.
In this case it looks like we see someone who never made the purchase, who was not informed and is now what?
Trying to save face.
If what you said was true, then there would be no such thing as false advertising laws. Companies misrepresent their products all the time, and others spread and continue these misrepresentations.
There's a reason Cryptic has an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau.
What ever happened to people actually, you know, finding out what they're buying before they pay for something? There was ample opportunity to try the game before you bought. Now there are people trying to come up with lies and other ways to weasel out of their purchase? Whatever happened to morals and honesty?
Reading what someone else thinks about the game may not be enough, especially in an environment so full of fanboys and haters (bias of any kind). There are the reviews online, but they are just a bit better than someone else's opinion because the person is paid to give the review, it's still going to be what somebody else thinks, the determining factor for the refund/chargeback here is what the company thinks (advertises) about their game and failed to meet in the customer's view.
While someone could have played the beta and chosen their purchase or pre-order cancel based on a BETA (so, is it morally right to judge a purchase on a beta?). I was forced to do that because I knew there would be no trials at release and I don't trust people when there's money at stake, I hate to go through the hassle of requesting refunds/chargebacks). But that's me being way too cautious with my money and harming myself (still waiting for a Darkfall trial btw) with that, not using the tools given to us to defend ourselves after a purchase.
Point is there are no trials, therefore no way for someone to judge a purchase based on own experience rather than what people talk about the game and we all know how risky that is unless it's someone you trust that shares similar tastes, preferably IRL, but that's outside the randomness of the internet, and it's still risky.
It is like buying an Action movie and trying to take it back because it turned out to be a period romantic drama. Being informed is not just a responsiblity but also the onus is on the customer to be fully aware of what they are purchasing. In this case it looks like we see someone who never made the purchase, who was not informed and is now what? Trying to save face.
Is there no onus on the merchant? No consequence for acting irresponsibly? Does the customer have no recourse if it turns out the merchant has done a lot to obfuscate as much as possible the details and information the customer may need?
All you people who argue about the responsibilities of the customer are certain right, but what about the responsibilities of the merchant? Doesn't that exist for you? How badly does a company have to screw up? Many other industries and companies offer refunds to customers for no other reason than because the customer is unhappy. A customer wanting a refund for being unhappy with a product is not a moral failing.
Not spreading falsities or do I care where you pretend to work.
I had an issue with a fradulent charge from a web-site. I contacted my bank. They gave me the money back instantly while they were investigating it. I could use that money, it was in no state of limbo at any point. At some point along the investigation the website convinced the bank the charge was valid. The Bank then sided with the website and removed the money back from my account (was over a month later).
You are misinformed and think you know more then you do.
So to reiterate:
Most banks/CC companies will instantly give the money back while investigating. Later when the investigation is finished the bank/CC company can retake the money/recharge the account. The bank/CC company never has to tell you when it sided with the company or you. It also is not required to give you an explanation of why.
O.K. --- a lot of misinformation about this subject.
Here is a link to the what the Attorney General for California has to say on the subject:
While it might vary a bit depending on where you live... the gist is this:
There are two categories recognized by federal and state law under which you can resist payment, and these are known as "billing errors" and "claims and defenses".
The types of "billing errors" include: (3) Charges for goods or services different from what was represented...
If you get your letter challenging the charge to your bank within the 60 day period , you need not meet any other condition.
You need not make any attempt to resolve the dispute with the merchant, and you can assert a billing error even if you have already paid your credit card balance down to zero.
If the claim is determined by the card issuing bank to be valid, it will issue a credit to your account for the amount claimed.
If the card issuing bank finds your claim to be invalid, you may wish to contact your own bank to see if they will help.
In the event your bank denies your request and you believe that you have satisfied all of the required conditions, you can file or make a complaint with the Attorney General's Office website.
Clearly in favor of the customer. It's really in the interest of a merchant to make sure the customer is satisfied and happy.
Here is also a link to MasterCard's merchant policy regarding charge-backs and other policies... it's 542 pages:
The charge-back feature is indeed a viable feature that customers have to get their money back if they are displeased with the merchandise. The bank may indeed deem the charge-back invalid... then the charge still applies. The merchant may indeed re-issue the fee... which in turn can be disputed once again.
The only way a customer is going to get a "black mark" on their credit rating is if they repeatedly abuse the charge-back feature. It is there for the precise reason of a customer feeling that they received a product that was not what they were expecting. Merchants that accept CC's know this and willingly accept the policies that go with them.
From the perspective of the merchant trying to avoid charge-backs this site advertising their product was an interesting read:
Merchants are assumed to be in the wrong whenever a customer requests a chargeback.
Chargebacks are a potentially devastating force for any online merchant and must be treated seriously.
Chargebacks definitely are not fair to the merchant who has acted out of good faith. However, the power generally lies with the customer.
Hopefully those sites above should give everyone who wants it the informaiton they need to determine the truth about charge-backs.
Thank you, finally some cited truth on the matter.
Also, it seems that SnarlingWolf's story was completely made up after all. Fraudulent charges always favour the card-holder, as I've been saying the entire time.
Yeah, any research on the subject shows:
The customer is fully within their rights to request a charge-back if they are dissatisfied with a product.
The CC banks over-whelmingly favor the customer over the merchant
The merchant must comply with necesarry documentation, and even then may still loose the charge-back.
The customer at worst ends up paying the amount they did originally.
Does the above get taken advantage of by unscrupulous customers?... Probably.
Are merchants at a disadvantage when it comes to CC's and charge-backs?... Definitely.
All the more reason for merchants to make sure they are doing everything they can to keep as many customers as possible happy and gain a good reputation for themselves with their customers.
Like it or not, this is the environment that merchants must deal with when dealing with CC's and customers.
My main reason for poking around in this thread was to help dispell mis-information. Hopefully some of the links above might help in that regards.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Xondar123
Originally posted by AmazingAvery
Originally posted by grapevine
Originally posted by Dawnherald
Originally posted by grapevine
That is utter garbage. They did not remove the feature and you can indeed make your own species/race. In general though (re. the thread), given I've not been looking at this site for a while. Its good to see it hasn't changed. Troll and haters heaven, not matter the game. You guys are a joke, seriously.
However, it wasn't in in beta, so it was pretty much impossible to know, for those of us who got out as early as possible.
Yes it was in Beta. Both closed and open. Clearly you "got out" without even knowning the game and just jumped to conclusions. Mostly likely already made up before even loging in.
It is like buying an Action movie and trying to take it back because it turned out to be a period romantic drama.
Being informed is not just a responsiblity but also the onus is on the customer to be fully aware of what they are purchasing.
In this case it looks like we see someone who never made the purchase, who was not informed and is now what?
Trying to save face.
If what you said was true, then there would be no such thing as false advertising laws. Companies misrepresent their products all the time, and others spread and continue these misrepresentations.
There's a reason Cryptic has an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau.
What exactly has been falsely advertised. Because to be completely honest the only gripe has been addressed in the thread which then went on to be an argument about Card Companies and rights and not about why someone might raise the question in the first place.
Every purchase you make as a customer is your decision and therefore the responsibility is on you to be informed as possible about your purchase. You are the one making the choice. That responsibility could very be looking through terms and conditions of the game in question.
In this case ST:O is a monthly paid mmorpg which basically consitutes a contractual based service to deliver the service you pay for. That service is pretty clearly outlined in a multitude of places. Such as giving notice to cancel etc etc. Same with most respectable mmo companies.
Are you aware that most companies launch with a lower rating at the BB when a new product is launched and are you aware of the time frame in resolving those issues. How much of that rating pertains to ST:O?
35 unanswered responses. In less than a week since their product launched. So what is a feasible turn around and how really impactful - not very is it, lets be honest.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by dhayes68
Originally posted by AmazingAvery
It is like buying an Action movie and trying to take it back because it turned out to be a period romantic drama. Being informed is not just a responsiblity but also the onus is on the customer to be fully aware of what they are purchasing. In this case it looks like we see someone who never made the purchase, who was not informed and is now what? Trying to save face.
Is there no onus on the merchant? No consequence for acting irresponsibly? Does the customer have no recourse if it turns out the merchant has done a lot to obfuscate as much as possible the details and information the customer may need?
All you people who argue about the responsibilities of the customer are certain right, but what about the responsibilities of the merchant? Doesn't that exist for you? How badly does a company have to screw up? Many other industries and companies offer refunds to customers for no other reason than because the customer is unhappy. A customer wanting a refund for being unhappy with a product is not a moral failing.
Seems like you have got your feathers in a fluff.
Why is no one talking about specifics about where the "merchant" messed up here? As I said before there is only 1 issue I read back at start of thread that got shot down.
Do you really believe that I don't think there are resonsibilites on the business side, of course. Two way process.
Provide the goods.
" A customer wanting a refund for being unhappy with a product is not a moral failing." - could very well be their stupidity too.
Comments
You are still claiming that you know better than both the EU and the UK government. Which is what my post was about. Really, move your massive ego out of my thread.
1) Natural Immunities and Acute Senses are available as options for the "Alien" custom race, meaning your only paying to have your head look like a butt.
2) Warrior and Honorable are somewhat more of a grey area in that they are Klingon specific (though Alien offers nearly identical abilities with slighly lower bonus percentages), but means these abilities are technically aquirable in game... your not paying to play a Klingon, you can already do that, your paying to play a Klingon in a diffrent faction. How you view this depends on how you want to nitpick. For my part since no other mainstream MMO with factional PvP that I can think of has any mechnism for cross-faction racial play, personally I don't see this as unfair... and based on the fact of the situation I would view using this as the basis of a fraud case... as fraud... particularly since I very much doubt that anyone who is now launching a charge dispute through their credit card company is doing so because they have to pay for use of Warrior and Honorable on the Federation side. In fact I'm relatively sure that anyone who buy Federation Klingon, bought them for purely cosmetic reasons, not because they JUST HAD to have Warrior and Honorable on the Federation side for gameplay reasons.
Active: WoW
Semi-retired: STO
Fully retired: UO, EQ, AC, SWG, FFXI, DDO:EU, PoTBS, AoC, EvE
Tried: EQ2, Tabula Rasa, Auto-Assault, Isteria, LotRO, Wizard 101
Looking forward to: Star Citizen
Another person who thinks that they know better than their own government.
It is THE LAW, man. Face it, you're wrong.
Another person that fails at reading comprehension.
I never claimed it couldn't be done, I said 'YOU DON'T DESERVE IT.'
And who made you the arbiter on what people do or do not deserve?
I find this attitude "quite crying, you're a bad consumer, you deserve to pay for the bad product" to be very odd and quite moronic. If consumers shouldn't have any rights, then how are companies supposed to learn from their mistakes? The consumer's power to purchase or not purchase from a company is how the vaunted system of capitalism works. Thus, bad companies die, and good companies flourish.
But then again, I think everyone here saying "YOU DON'T DESERVE IT" would be singing a far different tune if the tables were turned and they were on the recieving end.
You are still claiming that you know better than both the EU and the UK government. Which is what my post was about. Really, move your massive ego out of my thread.
And for the record I am better than my government, which is the whole reason my government passes consumer protection laws in the first place and assumes won't abuse them to the point where the government has to crack down and pass the advantage back to the merchants... because >>YOU DIDN'T LIKE<< a video game.
Active: WoW
Semi-retired: STO
Fully retired: UO, EQ, AC, SWG, FFXI, DDO:EU, PoTBS, AoC, EvE
Tried: EQ2, Tabula Rasa, Auto-Assault, Isteria, LotRO, Wizard 101
Looking forward to: Star Citizen
You do realise that all merchants and businesses commit small scale fraud, don't you?
Stuff like managers "hiring" their wives for £5k a year because that's untaxable?
What I'm suggest in this thread isn't even fraud, it's merely people utilising their consumer rights to get something worthwhile out of a product.
Incorrect. I work for a merchant service company. the card holder never is charged a "false" charge. They just lose the case. And, they can re-issue the same chargeback up to 3 times in 3 months. You're wrong. Never is the card holder held accountable, even when they lose. The merchant however (Cryptic in this case) will still be charged the chargeback assessment fee, even is they win.
QFT
I use to deliver pizza. As anyone that works at a pizza joint knows, you can only successfully bake a pizza with so many toppings. If you pile on 15 toppings, your pizza will not bake all the way.
You can also only "Well Done" a pizza so much. It seems pretty common sense to me that if you run a pizza through the oven so many times it will get burned.
Many, many times in my life as the pizza boy, customers would ask for these things. I would always say "Sir, Its not going to come out right, You will not like it"
Ofcourse, the pizza is totally FUBAR and they want their money back. Do you think they deserve their money back after being informed of the consequence of their choice?
Another person who thinks that they know better than their own government.
It is THE LAW, man. Face it, you're wrong.
Another person that fails at reading comprehension.
I never claimed it couldn't be done, I said 'YOU DON'T DESERVE IT.'
And who made you the arbiter on what people do or do not deserve?
I find this attitude "quite crying, you're a bad consumer, you deserve to pay for the bad product" to be very odd and quite moronic. If consumers shouldn't have any rights, then how are companies supposed to learn from their mistakes? The consumer's power to purchase or not purchase from a company is how the vaunted system of capitalism works. Thus, bad companies die, and good companies flourish.
But then again, I think everyone here saying "YOU DON'T DESERVE IT" would be singing a far different tune if the tables were turned and they were on the recieving end.
I could turn that question right around on you, but I won't.
I'm entitled to my opinion as are you.
I decide what I think is right and wrong, what people deserve and don't deserve - Whether I can actually do anything about it other than voice my opinion is another matter entirely.
All I'm trying to say is that if people gave an ounce of thought into things and did a bit of research first we wouldn't have threads like this.
Another person who thinks that they know better than their own government.
It is THE LAW, man. Face it, you're wrong.
Another person that fails at reading comprehension.
I never claimed it couldn't be done, I said 'YOU DON'T DESERVE IT.'
And who made you the arbiter on what people do or do not deserve?
I find this attitude "quite crying, you're a bad consumer, you deserve to pay for the bad product" to be very odd and quite moronic. If consumers shouldn't have any rights, then how are companies supposed to learn from their mistakes? The consumer's power to purchase or not purchase from a company is how the vaunted system of capitalism works. Thus, bad companies die, and good companies flourish.
But then again, I think everyone here saying "YOU DON'T DESERVE IT" would be singing a far different tune if the tables were turned and they were on the recieving end.
I could turn that question right around on you, but I won't.
I'm entitled to my opinion as are you.
I decide what I think is right and wrong, what people deserve and don't deserve - Whether I can actually do anything about it other than voice my opinion is another matter entirely.
All I'm trying to say is that if people gave an ounce of thought into things and did a bit of research first we wouldn't have threads like this.
And if companies started selling products instead of hype we wouldn't have threads like this. So...
You are still claiming that you know better than both the EU and the UK government. Which is what my post was about. Really, move your massive ego out of my thread.
Just because I think you don't deserve a refund doesn't say that I claim to know better than both the EU and the UK government.
I also don't think people deserve the death sentence in many places worldwide doesn't mean I think I know better, I just don't agree.
Learn from your mistake and don't make the same one again. That's life.
Yes, maybe you should. On this, the law is in favour of the consumer, your opinion is worthless since it does not alter the facts. If we do not deserve to get the money back, why do we get it so?
What ever happened to people actually, you know, finding out what they're buying before they pay for something? There was ample opportunity to try the game before you bought.
Now there are people trying to come up with lies and other ways to weasel out of their purchase? Whatever happened to morals and honesty?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Believe it or not, there is a guy on the offiicial forums complaining because the game doesn't allow you to play offline. At first I thought he was just joking but he was serious. He was whining because he only has Dial up and can't keep a connection so he thinks Cryptic should make the game available offline, otherwise he wants his monney back.This is the mentality of a lot of people and frankly it's sad.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
O.K. --- a lot of misinformation about this subject.
Here is a link to the what the Attorney General for California has to say on the subject:
ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/credit_card_chargeback_rights.php
While it might vary a bit depending on where you live... the gist is this:
Clearly in favor of the customer. It's really in the interest of a merchant to make sure the customer is satisfied and happy.
Here is also a link to MasterCard's merchant policy regarding charge-backs and other policies... it's 542 pages:
www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/TB_CB_Manual.pdf
Here is a link to Visa's merchant policy regarding charge-backs... it's 151 pages:
usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card_acceptance_guide.pdf
The charge-back feature is indeed a viable feature that customers have to get their money back if they are displeased with the merchandise. The bank may indeed deem the charge-back invalid... then the charge still applies. The merchant may indeed re-issue the fee... which in turn can be disputed once again.
The only way a customer is going to get a "black mark" on their credit rating is if they repeatedly abuse the charge-back feature. It is there for the precise reason of a customer feeling that they received a product that was not what they were expecting. Merchants that accept CC's know this and willingly accept the policies that go with them.
From the perspective of the merchant trying to avoid charge-backs this site advertising their product was an interesting read:
www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/79598218-how-to-beat-chargebacks
A couple quotes from the site above:
Hopefully those sites above should give everyone who wants it the informaiton they need to determine the truth about charge-backs.
If mmo companies had any morals or honesty they wouldn't grossly overhype their products before launch and give refunds merely because the customer isn't happy with the product, as so many other industries do.
Some people have to weasel out of their purchase because the companies give them no option to behave honestly.
Another person who thinks that they know better than their own government.
It is THE LAW, man. Face it, you're wrong.
Another person that fails at reading comprehension.
I never claimed it couldn't be done, I said 'YOU DON'T DESERVE IT.'
And who made you the arbiter on what people do or do not deserve?
I find this attitude "quite crying, you're a bad consumer, you deserve to pay for the bad product" to be very odd and quite moronic. If consumers shouldn't have any rights, then how are companies supposed to learn from their mistakes? The consumer's power to purchase or not purchase from a company is how the vaunted system of capitalism works. Thus, bad companies die, and good companies flourish.
But then again, I think everyone here saying "YOU DON'T DESERVE IT" would be singing a far different tune if the tables were turned and they were on the recieving end.
I could turn that question right around on you, but I won't.
I'm entitled to my opinion as are you.
I decide what I think is right and wrong, what people deserve and don't deserve - Whether I can actually do anything about it other than voice my opinion is another matter entirely.
All I'm trying to say is that if people gave an ounce of thought into things and did a bit of research first we wouldn't have threads like this.
Laws are designed to favour the consumer. Why? One very huge reason: corporations make far more money and are far more powerful than the average consumer.
Cryptic could potentially make millions of dollars a year off of Star Trek Online alone. I can't even begin to match that kind of earning power, so if I have a dispute with Cryptic they would utterly crush me in a world without laws designed to protect the consumer.
You seem to think that a few dozen people using chargebacks to not pay for a product they aren't satisfied with will do damage to a multi-million dollar company.
Not to mention that if said companies deliver a product that is substandard or not as advertised, shouldn't they feel the consequences of those actions?
I'd hate to live in a world that you think is good and right.
Probably because some people were harping on and on about how amazing and great the product in question was. See, some people are actively damaging other people through mindless fanboyism.
O.K. --- a lot of misinformation about this subject.
Here is a link to the what the Attorney General for California has to say on the subject:
ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/credit_card_chargeback_rights.php
While it might vary a bit depending on where you live... the gist is this:
Clearly in favor of the customer. It's really in the interest of a merchant to make sure the customer is satisfied and happy.
Here is also a link to MasterCard's merchant policy regarding charge-backs and other policies... it's 542 pages:
www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/TB_CB_Manual.pdf
Here is a link to Visa's merchant policy regarding charge-backs... it's 151 pages:
usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card_acceptance_guide.pdf
The charge-back feature is indeed a viable feature that customers have to get their money back if they are displeased with the merchandise. The bank may indeed deem the charge-back invalid... then the charge still applies. The merchant may indeed re-issue the fee... which in turn can be disputed once again.
The only way a customer is going to get a "black mark" on their credit rating is if they repeatedly abuse the charge-back feature. It is there for the precise reason of a customer feeling that they received a product that was not what they were expecting. Merchants that accept CC's know this and willingly accept the policies that go with them.
From the perspective of the merchant trying to avoid charge-backs this site advertising their product was an interesting read:
www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/79598218-how-to-beat-chargebacks
A couple quotes from the site above:
Hopefully those sites above should give everyone who wants it the informaiton they need to determine the truth about charge-backs.
Thank you, finally some cited truth on the matter.
Also, it seems that SnarlingWolf's story was completely made up after all. Fraudulent charges always favour the card-holder, as I've been saying the entire time.
However, it wasn't in in beta, so it was pretty much impossible to know, for those of us who got out as early as possible.
Yes it was in Beta. Both closed and open. Clearly you "got out" without even knowning the game and just jumped to conclusions. Mostly likely already made up before even loging in.
It is like buying an Action movie and trying to take it back because it turned out to be a period romantic drama.
Being informed is not just a responsiblity but also the onus is on the customer to be fully aware of what they are purchasing.
In this case it looks like we see someone who never made the purchase, who was not informed and is now what?
Trying to save face.
However, it wasn't in in beta, so it was pretty much impossible to know, for those of us who got out as early as possible.
Yes it was in Beta. Both closed and open. Clearly you "got out" without even knowning the game and just jumped to conclusions. Mostly likely already made up before even loging in.
It is like buying an Action movie and trying to take it back because it turned out to be a period romantic drama.
Being informed is not just a responsiblity but also the onus is on the customer to be fully aware of what they are purchasing.
In this case it looks like we see someone who never made the purchase, who was not informed and is now what?
Trying to save face.
If what you said was true, then there would be no such thing as false advertising laws. Companies misrepresent their products all the time, and others spread and continue these misrepresentations.
There's a reason Cryptic has an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau.
Reading what someone else thinks about the game may not be enough, especially in an environment so full of fanboys and haters (bias of any kind). There are the reviews online, but they are just a bit better than someone else's opinion because the person is paid to give the review, it's still going to be what somebody else thinks, the determining factor for the refund/chargeback here is what the company thinks (advertises) about their game and failed to meet in the customer's view.
While someone could have played the beta and chosen their purchase or pre-order cancel based on a BETA (so, is it morally right to judge a purchase on a beta?). I was forced to do that because I knew there would be no trials at release and I don't trust people when there's money at stake, I hate to go through the hassle of requesting refunds/chargebacks). But that's me being way too cautious with my money and harming myself (still waiting for a Darkfall trial btw) with that, not using the tools given to us to defend ourselves after a purchase.
Point is there are no trials, therefore no way for someone to judge a purchase based on own experience rather than what people talk about the game and we all know how risky that is unless it's someone you trust that shares similar tastes, preferably IRL, but that's outside the randomness of the internet, and it's still risky.
Is there no onus on the merchant? No consequence for acting irresponsibly? Does the customer have no recourse if it turns out the merchant has done a lot to obfuscate as much as possible the details and information the customer may need?
All you people who argue about the responsibilities of the customer are certain right, but what about the responsibilities of the merchant? Doesn't that exist for you? How badly does a company have to screw up? Many other industries and companies offer refunds to customers for no other reason than because the customer is unhappy. A customer wanting a refund for being unhappy with a product is not a moral failing.
O.K. --- a lot of misinformation about this subject.
Here is a link to the what the Attorney General for California has to say on the subject:
ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/credit_card_chargeback_rights.php
While it might vary a bit depending on where you live... the gist is this:
Clearly in favor of the customer. It's really in the interest of a merchant to make sure the customer is satisfied and happy.
Here is also a link to MasterCard's merchant policy regarding charge-backs and other policies... it's 542 pages:
www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/TB_CB_Manual.pdf
Here is a link to Visa's merchant policy regarding charge-backs... it's 151 pages:
usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card_acceptance_guide.pdf
The charge-back feature is indeed a viable feature that customers have to get their money back if they are displeased with the merchandise. The bank may indeed deem the charge-back invalid... then the charge still applies. The merchant may indeed re-issue the fee... which in turn can be disputed once again.
The only way a customer is going to get a "black mark" on their credit rating is if they repeatedly abuse the charge-back feature. It is there for the precise reason of a customer feeling that they received a product that was not what they were expecting. Merchants that accept CC's know this and willingly accept the policies that go with them.
From the perspective of the merchant trying to avoid charge-backs this site advertising their product was an interesting read:
www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/79598218-how-to-beat-chargebacks
A couple quotes from the site above:
Hopefully those sites above should give everyone who wants it the informaiton they need to determine the truth about charge-backs.
Thank you, finally some cited truth on the matter.
Also, it seems that SnarlingWolf's story was completely made up after all. Fraudulent charges always favour the card-holder, as I've been saying the entire time.
Yeah, any research on the subject shows:
Does the above get taken advantage of by unscrupulous customers?... Probably.
Are merchants at a disadvantage when it comes to CC's and charge-backs?... Definitely.
All the more reason for merchants to make sure they are doing everything they can to keep as many customers as possible happy and gain a good reputation for themselves with their customers.
Like it or not, this is the environment that merchants must deal with when dealing with CC's and customers.
My main reason for poking around in this thread was to help dispell mis-information. Hopefully some of the links above might help in that regards.
However, it wasn't in in beta, so it was pretty much impossible to know, for those of us who got out as early as possible.
Yes it was in Beta. Both closed and open. Clearly you "got out" without even knowning the game and just jumped to conclusions. Mostly likely already made up before even loging in.
It is like buying an Action movie and trying to take it back because it turned out to be a period romantic drama.
Being informed is not just a responsiblity but also the onus is on the customer to be fully aware of what they are purchasing.
In this case it looks like we see someone who never made the purchase, who was not informed and is now what?
Trying to save face.
If what you said was true, then there would be no such thing as false advertising laws. Companies misrepresent their products all the time, and others spread and continue these misrepresentations.
There's a reason Cryptic has an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau.
What exactly has been falsely advertised. Because to be completely honest the only gripe has been addressed in the thread which then went on to be an argument about Card Companies and rights and not about why someone might raise the question in the first place.
Every purchase you make as a customer is your decision and therefore the responsibility is on you to be informed as possible about your purchase. You are the one making the choice. That responsibility could very be looking through terms and conditions of the game in question.
In this case ST:O is a monthly paid mmorpg which basically consitutes a contractual based service to deliver the service you pay for. That service is pretty clearly outlined in a multitude of places. Such as giving notice to cancel etc etc. Same with most respectable mmo companies.
Are you aware that most companies launch with a lower rating at the BB when a new product is launched and are you aware of the time frame in resolving those issues. How much of that rating pertains to ST:O?
35 unanswered responses. In less than a week since their product launched. So what is a feasible turn around and how really impactful - not very is it, lets be honest.
Is there no onus on the merchant? No consequence for acting irresponsibly? Does the customer have no recourse if it turns out the merchant has done a lot to obfuscate as much as possible the details and information the customer may need?
All you people who argue about the responsibilities of the customer are certain right, but what about the responsibilities of the merchant? Doesn't that exist for you? How badly does a company have to screw up? Many other industries and companies offer refunds to customers for no other reason than because the customer is unhappy. A customer wanting a refund for being unhappy with a product is not a moral failing.
Seems like you have got your feathers in a fluff.
Why is no one talking about specifics about where the "merchant" messed up here? As I said before there is only 1 issue I read back at start of thread that got shot down.
Do you really believe that I don't think there are resonsibilites on the business side, of course. Two way process.
Provide the goods.
" A customer wanting a refund for being unhappy with a product is not a moral failing." - could very well be their stupidity too.