I think this thread is a lil stoopy, but i dont wanna offend anyone, i can imagine that lifetimers may feel bit pissed about its B2P now, but to dream the dream of a successful lawsuit for a gamecompany, thats just minor, sorry.

success with it, hope you win if you would go down that path...

I doubt you'll win though because of the vast recourses those companies have available and the fact that 99.9% of such situations are covered in the EULA, which noone reads.

Right so.. you're still getting unlimited access to the game, check. You will continue to get the same as subscribers, check. You now get extra cashshop currency that you didn't before, check.

Seriously, why can't you lifetimers and subscribers see that you are now BETTER OFF. There is no debate other than you all pissin your pants on some dumb principle idea. Bringing more people to the game is better for YOU as well as for Funcom.

Originally posted by Vannor

RIght so.. you're sitll getting unlimited acedss to the game, check. You will continue to get the same subscribers, check. You now get extra cashshop currency that you didn't before, check.

Seriously, why can't you lifetimers see that you are now BETTER OFF.

Plus a boost in playerbase. I mean thats a major plus. Would the lifetimers rather them not do it and have nobody playing the game anymore other than lifetime players? It lost a major amount of subscriptions and this was a way for them to get players back without any major repricussions, they will still get people subbing who want to, they will get people paying for cash shop stuff, they get the life time players to continue to play. I see nothing but positives. Lifetimers get constant cash shop money to buy anything they need in terms of DLC and they even stated it would be more than enough each month to buy all the dlc. They get an exp boost just like subscribers do. They get the item each month that subscribers get. I think it's better this way than the other way.

Originally posted by Vannor

RIght so.. you're sitll getting unlimited acedss to the game, check. You will continue to get the same subscribers, check. You now get extra cashshop currency that you didn't before, check.

Seriously, why can't you lifetimers see that you are now BETTER OFF.

Because I seriously doubt people like the OP are really lifetimers at all!

More like just trolls that jump at every opportunity to start rage threads and troll the forums.

As every sane person that "really" is a lifetimer can immediately see the benefit of this change and that they are now better off and get more than before!

And on top of that, the extra bonus is an increase in player population!

Originally posted by JeroKane

Originally posted by Vannor

RIght so.. you're sitll getting unlimited acedss to the game, check. You will continue to get the same subscribers, check. You now get extra cashshop currency that you didn't before, check.

Seriously, why can't you lifetimers see that you are now BETTER OFF.

Because I seriously doubt people like the OP are really lifetimers at all!

More like just trolls that jump at every opportunity to start rage threads and troll the forums.

As every sane person that "really" is a lifetimer can immediately see the benefit of this change and that they are now better off and get more than before!

And on top of that, the extra bonus is an increase in player population!

Considering how many subscription elitists there are on this site, I doubt many would agree with your notions of going B2P as a bonus.

I do, however.  :)

Originally posted by Tjed
Probably not going to get anywhere.  There is usually some tricky wording in the terms that players check a box and agree to every time they log in. 

Terms of agreements, EULAs etc, have NO LEGAL POWER when specifics are written into LAW. If contractual law states that details of a service agreement must be known in advance (AND IT DOES), no amount of tricky wording makes what they did legal.

I'm astounded how many are so incredibly clueless about how this works.

Originally posted by dimnikar

Originally posted by Tjed
Probably not going to get anywhere.  There is usually some tricky wording in the terms that players check a box and agree to every time they log in. 

Terms of agreements, EULAs etc, have NO LEGAL POWER when specifics are written into LAW. If contractual law states that details of a service agreement must be known in advance (AND IT DOES), no amount of tricky wording makes what they did legal.

I'm astounded how many are so incredibly clueless about how this works.

Lol, it's funny when people jump in calling everyone clueless when they are saying something rediculous.

The "Terms of agreements, EULAs etc." ARE the details of a service agreement.

Originally posted by dimnikar

Originally posted by Tjed
Probably not going to get anywhere.  There is usually some tricky wording in the terms that players check a box and agree to every time they log in. 

Terms of agreements, EULAs etc, have NO LEGAL POWER when specifics are written into LAW. If contractual law states that details of a service agreement must be known in advance (AND IT DOES), no amount of tricky wording makes what they did legal.

I'm astounded how many are so incredibly clueless about how this works.

 

It's not wise to call people clueless when you don't have much of a clue yourself :)

Originally posted by Vannor

Originally posted by dimnikar

Originally posted by Tjed
Probably not going to get anywhere.  There is usually some tricky wording in the terms that players check a box and agree to every time they log in. 

Terms of agreements, EULAs etc, have NO LEGAL POWER when specifics are written into LAW. If contractual law states that details of a service agreement must be known in advance (AND IT DOES), no amount of tricky wording makes what they did legal.

I'm astounded how many are so incredibly clueless about how this works.

Lol, it's funny when people jump in calling everyone clueless when they are saying something rediculous.

The "Terms of agreements, EULAs etc." ARE the details of a service agreement.

Amusing isn't it :)

I am pretty sure it has been mentioned before but it bears repeating again.

The reason the OP would not get anywhere is not becuase of the ToS or EULA but the fact that the company have taken steps to compensate the customer that i think most courts would find more then enough. And as such the OP have no case. This is in no way related to the ToS or EULA:

---

Originally posted by Trionicus
I finished up a case in court recently. The judge threw out the corporations TOS and they were forced to pay me. A TOS / EULA are not law nor contracts. That said, it is still possible for a company to protect themselves to a certain degree using either. Either way, once you can prove an injured / violated party, you are golden.

 

Usually you'll find those terms and agreements irrelevant unless the user / customer has broken the LAW (this includes violating a companys rights, as in the case of Hotz).

 

TOS' agreement types that state something like "subject to change without notice" actually negates the entire reason for an agreement. These are also very different from contracts and, contracts cannot be subject to change without notice so... figure it out.

 

Bottom line: You might be able to get a refund on remaining unused subscription time because of the drastic change in the service, providing you have already attempted to negotiate a refund with the company and have been denied or ignored.

 

+ Most likely it's not financially worth your time to persue this but, if you have the time then sure, might as well. Ironically people here might tell you it's a waste of time, while wasting time telling you it's a waste of time, unlike you though, they have no potential of any financial gain, they're just wasting time.

---

Originally posted by Teala
See, it is for this very reason that lifetime subs are worthless.

Agreed and I damn nearly did lifetime on this one

OP I have one message for you:

PATHETIC entitlement, your posts are full of baseless chaotic arguments, but thanks for the good laugh. Best thread of the day.

please do us all a favor and spend some 1000s for a "game lawyer" to save you 199 bucks... lol, really

you get all further DLC for free plus points stipend, they'll even add an auto-deduct option to get the DLCs with your free points, so you won't even notice a difference.

I think you just love trolling.

PS: Anyone believing this guy has money for a lawyer, when complaining about the price of a dinner??? ROFL. Poor blackmailing attempt

that is all

Originally posted by zephermarkus

EULA AND TOS never hold up in court and the customer always wins.

 Nonsense. If they never held up in court they wouldn't even exist. No one would be able to enforce any contract and no software product would be marketable. Every gaming company would be bankrupted by constant litigation. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. A monkey with a briefcase could win this case for Funcom.

Originally posted by FromHell

OP I have one message for you:

PATHETIC entitlement, your posts are full of baseless chaotic arguments, but thanks for the good laugh. Best thread of the day.

please do us all a favor and spend some 1000s for a "game lawyer" to save you 199 bucks... lol, really

 

you get all further DLC for free plus points stipend, they'll even add an auto-deduct option to get the DLCs with your free points, so you won't even notice a difference.

I think you just love trolling.

 

PS: Anyone believing this guy has money for a lawyer, when complaining about the price of a dinner??? ROFL. Poor blackmailing attempt

 

that is all

He alone may not have the money for a lawyer, but perhaps he is hoping that a lot of people will be able to group together and file a class action lawsuit.

However Lifetime subs are just risky, and a gamble. A Lifetime sub allows full access to the game for the lifetime of the game, that could even be one day.

So, there will not be many, if any at all, as most people will understand the risks.

Although they did say they were not going to make it F2P, and I even had a brief desire to buy the LT sub, a few months ago, but never did. I am glad I did not now either, as although you still get rewards and and stuff, they really do not look worth it.

I am starting to get fed up of companies saying one thing and then doing something else. Both LA and SOE said that SWG and SWTOR would co-exist - that never happened. EA said they were not going to the F2P route either, but offer some alternative payment option, that never happened either.

So, if legal action can be taken over companies saying one thing, and then changing their minds, which has serious negative impact on consumers decisions (Funcom saying they were not going F2P made me think getting a LT sub could be worth it), then they should go for it, so then when people say things publicy in the future they have to stick with what they say or suffer the consequences. ie Smedley said that EQ Next will be the biggest MMO sandbox, if that does not happen and it ends up being a typiclal themepark, he gets sued or whatever. However, going after them for LT subs is not going to work.

In the end though all these changing of minds does more harm to themselves and other companies, in the long run, as in the end you can not trust them, and so avoid them like the plague, or only buy LT subs if you can handle game shutting down or going F2P. I guess this is what is happening more, and so people just wait instead of buying into it, which then forces them to go F2P, as people do not trust companies any more. If people did not think it would go F2P, they probably would have bougtht the game, and subbed, and less likely to have gone F2P. If another MMO releases with a $15 montly fee after this, even more people will less likely give it a go from the start, and just wait for it to go F2P, except maybe Blizzards new MMO

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by zephermarkus

EULA AND TOS never hold up in court and the customer always wins.

 Nonsense. If they never held up in court they wouldn't even exist. No one would be able to enforce any contract and no software product would be marketable. Every gaming company would be bankrupted by constant litigation. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. A monkey with a briefcase could win this case for Funcom.

They exist so that customers are made to believe that "what the company says in EULAs is binding" upon them.

Except it isn't. Just because a company says something is legal in their EULA, does not make it so.

These "click if you accept" EULAs and "You accept terms if product is opened" TOS have been thrown out of court many, many times.

The only reason people don't file more lawsuits, is that most people are not going to sue over a $60 video/comp game.

That said, on the occasions people have been legitimately suing for various reasons, they have been winning most of the time, in regards to EULA related issues.

Do a search on "Autodesk, Autocad, reselling, lawsuit" if you want to read up on a good one. The case should pop up.

Originally posted by xeniar

You knew very well before lifetiming that in these times MMO's have a tendency of failing, meaning they might close down entirly or have to change how they do things.

Yes the small letters in the terms of service wil give all rights to do so to the company.

You knew it could happen yet you still lifetimed. don't come crying now.

I agree, everyone and his dog said taking out a lifetime sub thesedays is stupid. Pity the fools!

Originally posted by Thenextbigthing

Originally posted by xeniar

You knew very well before lifetiming that in these times MMO's have a tendency of failing, meaning they might close down entirly or have to change how they do things.

Yes the small letters in the terms of service wil give all rights to do so to the company.

You knew it could happen yet you still lifetimed. don't come crying now.

 

I agree, everyone and his dog said taking out a lifetime sub thesedays is stupid. Pity the fools!

I agree, people need to really think before spending money they cannot afford to lose.

However, ther is nothing wrong with supporting a company, even though they might have done some thing that could be done better.