My experience with DIABLO III. (Stay awhile and listen..)

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

"

zeto wrote:

I fully support getting refunds after the fact, as these industries today are predatory.

But hypothetically, does that mean I could go after GGG and get my 'support' back at any time? This is why I think it's such a messy concept, because they've already done precisely what they said they would regarding my contribution -- the store credit's there, the unique's done, the avatar's done. I suppose if they renege on the physical items I'd have some grounds, but that's a bit different, isn't it?

We'e really inching towards the idea of me being able to say, 'Hey, GGG, give me my money back because I'm not satisfied with the service I paid for!'...when that service included actual man-hours of work.

...as did the making of Diablo III...

Maybe it's a lot more clear-cut than I think. Again, this isn't really about D3 at all, not anymore. It's about the line between customer dissatisfaction being a refundable experience, and customer dissatisfaction after the fact of getting one's money's worth.

And I paid a lot more than $60. So if, say, 10-20 hours of functional gameplay is 'unsatisfactory' for a D3 player at $60, how many hours of game-play am I allowed before I can make the same claim? ;)

I can't believe I am saying this, but, your reasoning is wrong. You're comparing a finished product that doesn't work to paying for a service that is directly aimed at you. It's like paying a painter to paint your house and then demand a refund because X, after he did the job.

Bracing myself for incoming mammoth.

"

xxnoob wrote:

I can't believe I am saying this, but, your reasoning is wrong. You're comparing a finished product that doesn't work to paying for a service that is directly aimed at you. It's like paying a painter to paint your house and then demand a refund because X, after he did the job.

But that's the thing. D3 does work. I have plenty of friends playing and loving it. And I know some of the people getting refunds have been able to as well. What's the threshold? How many Error 37s must a player get before they qualify for a refund?

Or is there some widespread defect to this game that I don't know about? If so, are my friends who can play the game just fine (give or take server issues -- lots of other games have had those, I'm afraid) just extremely lucky?

Also, the directly-aimed-at-me thing -- does that mean that the other support packages, we'll say gold and down, still qualify for this type of refund?

Many questions.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate of course -- I think Blizzard are just doing it because it's the easy way out and they're still pretty confident the majority of 'dissatisfied' players won't think to ask for their money back.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

"

zeto wrote:

I fully support getting refunds after the fact, as these industries today are predatory.

But hypothetically, does that mean I could go after GGG and get my 'support' back at any time? This is why I think it's such a messy concept, because they've already done precisely what they said they would regarding my contribution -- the store credit's there, the unique's done, the avatar's done. I suppose if they renege on the physical items I'd have some grounds, but that's a bit different, isn't it?

We'e really inching towards the idea of me being able to say, 'Hey, GGG, give me my money back because I'm not satisfied with the service I paid for!'...when that service included actual man-hours of work.

...as did the making of Diablo III...

Maybe it's a lot more clear-cut than I think. Again, this isn't really about D3 at all, not anymore. It's about the line between customer dissatisfaction being a refundable experience, and customer dissatisfaction after the fact of getting one's money's worth.

And I paid a lot more than $60. So if, say, 10-20 hours of functional gameplay is 'unsatisfactory' for a D3 player at $60, how many hours of game-play am I allowed before I can make the same claim? ;)

Not saying the distinction of the line is easy.

The easiest is a statute of limitations... Blizzard is offering a refund within 30 days. I find that reasonable.. it conforms to other lemon laws.

If GGG failed to provide you with physical items, if the physical items were of terrible quality, if you didn't like their custom item and they were unable to fix it, and the cosmetic choices in the future were not to your liking... yeah you'd be justified in getting that money back, or at least a significant portion.

A compounding aspect in the case of GGG is that their pre-purchase system is one to get the game to a playable state... not a completed retail product. Your purchase is moreso a donation than an ownership. I feel that distinction is important.

So yes, it gets muddy.

Most things you buy at a store, you can return after using it and finding out it's not suitable. Even books, very similar to video games, even have a 14 day return policy from major stores.

Most people understand that if you enjoyed something, even if you are done with it, that you should pay for that... only a few will take that opportunity to just get their money back.

Given that most people are honest consumers, I feel it's imperative to make your dollar vote consistent with how you feel about the product... and to that end, you MUST try before you buy.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

But that's the thing. D3 does work. I have plenty of friends playing and loving it. And I know some of the people getting refunds have been able to as well. What's the threshold? How many Error 37s must a player get before they qualify for a refund?

That's the same as arguing "Your Pintos gas tank didn't blow up yet, therefore you are not entitled to a refund." Even if D3 does work for some people, they did not follow through on many of their promises. The product they sold was different than the one they promised. Even if you aren't personally hurt by the sale of a faulty product, you are still entitled to a refund for it.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Or is there some widespread defect to this game that I don't know about? If so, are my friends who can play the game just fine (give or take server issues -- lots of other games have had those, I'm afraid) just extremely lucky?

I don't have this problem =/= everyone else does not have this problem. I never ran into the charge bug in D2, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't there. Whether or not you experience it, error 37, lag, and account hacking are all severe problems which Blizzard has failed to deal with adequately in the eyes of many former fans.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Also, the directly-aimed-at-me thing -- does that mean that the other support packages, we'll say gold and down, still qualify for this type of refund?

Unlikely, as POE supporter packages function as more of a donation. If POE charged $x for the final product, then GGG might start having to think about the refund policy. Though local law has the final say here, as always.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Many questions.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate of course -- I think Blizzard are just doing it because it's the easy way out and they're still pretty confident the majority of 'dissatisfied' players won't think to ask for their money back.

They may however get sued if accounts are still being hacked when the RMAH appears.

"

zeto wrote:

Most people understand that if you enjoyed something, even if you are done with it, that you should pay for that... only a few will take that opportunity to just get their money back.

...So it's ultimately a moral expectation that we don't all take advantage of this? There are some pretty interesting implications of this if so!

Flauros: that last point is most salient. If Blizzard doesn't get hacking under control (and we know they won't), and this impacts on the RMAH (essentially their eBay), they're in deep shit, eh?

The rest of your arguments I acknowledge and move on. For the most part. I have no intention of getting into the nitty-gritty of what makes a game 'defective', given how many are released these days virtually unplayable without first day patches, etc.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

"

xxnoob wrote:

I can't believe I am saying this, but, your reasoning is wrong. You're comparing a finished product that doesn't work to paying for a service that is directly aimed at you. It's like paying a painter to paint your house and then demand a refund because X, after he did the job.

But that's the thing. D3 does work. I have plenty of friends playing and loving it. And I know some of the people getting refunds have been able to as well. What's the threshold? How many Error 37s must a player get before they qualify for a refund?

Or is there some widespread defect to this game that I don't know about? If so, are my friends who can play the game just fine (give or take server issues -- lots of other games have had those, I'm afraid) just extremely lucky?

Also, the directly-aimed-at-me thing -- does that mean that the other support packages, we'll say gold and down, still qualify for this type of refund?

Many questions.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate of course -- I think Blizzard are just doing it because it's the easy way out and they're still pretty confident the majority of 'dissatisfied' players won't think to ask for their money back.

But would you demand a refund from GGG? At this point or any point?

I know it's a right that can easily be exploited, but if people are satisfied with what they get, the majority won't just ask for a refund to get their money back after they used the product.

It's kind of like piracy, there's lots of people who do it because they can't be arsed (or it's simply not possible for them) to buy video games, but there's also a good chunk of people who pirate games and then end up buying them.

If you offer a good service that people will like, you won't have to worry about refunds, or piracy or anything.

Blizzard created a bad product in the eyes of many people, they should have every right to get a refund. I have no idea how it works with transactions such as GGG's supporter packs, but I think we should have the right to get refunded also. It's a little trickier, though, if you already got the special goodies that are included in the Diamond pack, diamonds asking for a refund now would be really throwing away precious hours of work.

tl;dr: If you are ethical when providing a service / creating a product, consumers will also behave ethically, at least the great majority of them will.

"

xxnoob wrote:

But would you demand a refund from GGG? At this point or any point?

I know it's a right that can easily be exploited, but if people are satisfied with what they get, the majority won't just ask for a refund to get their money back after they used the product.

It's kind of like piracy, there's lots of people who do it because they can't be arsed (or it's simply not possible for them) to buy video games, but there's also a good chunk of people who pirate games and then end up buying them.

If you offer a good service that people will like, you won't have to worry about refunds, or piracy or anything.

Blizzard created a bad product in the eyes of many people, they should have every right to get a refund. I have no idea how it works with transactions such as GGG's supporter packs, but I think we should have the right to get refunded also. It's a little trickier, though, if you already got the special goodies that are included in the Diamond pack, diamonds asking for a refund now would be really throwing away precious hours of work.

tl;dr: If you are ethical when providing a service / creating a product, consumers will also behave ethically, at least the great majority of them will.

Now we're on the same page, because it's aligning with what zeto seemed to suggest to me. Ethics and morals play a key role in this whole debacle. Blizzard seemed to have none, so the players, dissatisfied and feeling short-changed, reciprocated.

And of course I'd never demand a refund from GGG -- in my eyes, they did what they promised to do. I was being obviously very hypothetical, and felt I was in a position to do so with my usual mix of exaggeration and self-deprecation.

It was a rhetorical question, really. I doubt many people would feel regret after buying the supporter packs. They're clearly advertised, $1000 are either well spent or insignificant in Diamond supporters eyes. Not that I am implying things.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

"

zeto wrote:

Most people understand that if you enjoyed something, even if you are done with it, that you should pay for that... only a few will take that opportunity to just get their money back.

...So it's ultimately a moral expectation that we don't all take advantage of this? There are some pretty interesting implications of this if so!

Most things people do have aspects of morality or ethics involved. Most people also have such an innate sense of this, that it's entirely transparent.

So it's not just this... it's very easy to commit fraud, but most people don't.

Likewise, producing a product that is bad upon use or inspection and then preventing people from getting a refund, is ethically dubious.

In general, the user should be able to show that they tried it, and the product failed in such a way that they are willing to forego future use or unused portions. The producer can, at best, attempt to show that their product does what was claimed... however the consumer only needs 1 example of why it does not to justify their return.

If a product DID satisfy a consumer, and the consumer no longer has a use for it (eg. no future use or unused portions,) and the producer can show this to be true... then they can justifiably prevent a refund.

This last aspect is why we're having this discussion about D3... The question is, does playing through to inferno/level 60 constitute completion? The user argued no, because the game is fundamentally designed to be played for a long period of time combined with the fact that certain major aspects of the game aren't available until 60... eg. end-game.

To that end, combined with errors and other issues, within a reasonable amount of time the user displayed that there exists aspects that are unsuitable, that there are future aspects they are willing to give up, and that the product did not deserve their vote.

So yes, there are moral aspects, but many of them can be objectively discussed to some degree.