test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Much less likely to buy lifetime again

1212224262738

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Drina wrote: »
    This is a legitimate complaint people are making.
    No, it is not. At least, not yet. You still have to show that you are entitled to compensation.
    Drina wrote: »
    And no it is not down to me to spoon feed you definitions. Go look it up on the web by typing "Definition Exclusive". I have nothing to prove to you. .
    Unfortunately, you do have a great deal to prove. In particular, you claim that the word "exclusive" has a meaning which it clearly does not; thus, if you want to make a legitimate complaint, it is your responsibility to show exactly how "exclusive" has the meaning you claim.

    Moreover, since your claim to legitimacy rests on this non-existent definition of "exclusive," it falls upon you not only to provide support for your definition of "exclusive," but also to demonstrate how the company failed to meet its contractual obligations.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Drina doesn't need to prove it and especially to some complete stranger. Many agree that we were ripped off. Hence the vast number of threads that keep popping up.

    there is around 4 threads. three of which were recycled from yesterday.

    I still want to know how it is unethical. ( I gave you an easy example, and I want to see your point of view )
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    joe_blue wrote:
    No, they purchase cars. They may view social prestige as an enticement for that purchase, and no doubt some take the view that they are in fact purchasing prestige. But simply because they hold that point of view does not mean that they are correct.

    Now, perhaps it is different where you live, but if I go to a car dealership, I am presented with two or more prices: the base price, that is to say, the standard model, and the package price, which includes additional equipment and/or service. I therefore know what I have paid for, and, more importantly, whether the warranty entitles me to compensation should one of those parts break.

    In other words, regardless of my reasons for making the purchase, however, I have still purchased a car, and not prestige, or heated windows, or shiny rims.

    Clearly the US need to wake up to consumer rights other countries hold. We aren't in the dark ages, many of our laws are much more precise and comsumer focused.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Drina doesn't need to prove it and especially to some complete stranger. Many agree.

    So it's perfectly fine for someone to come here and claim "Dryan ripped me off! I was deceived by Dryan! I was misled by Dryan", not be able to prove how or why or in what manner with no supporting clear evidence to justify that claim, and that would be perfectly ok, especially if someone else agreed with it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Please, don't even try to portary they didn't. Its just insulting to those affected.

    I purchased the LT Sub and the AMAZON CE with the Borg BO...so PLEASE don't try to tell me I'm not one of the "AFFECTED". Unless the Borg BO wasn't one of the items I just saw go up for sale?!?!?
    KK
    THX
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    So it's perfectly fine for someone to come here and claim "Dryan ripped me off! I was deceived by Dryan! I was misled by Dryan", not be able to prove how or why or in what manner with no supporting clear evidence to justify that claim, and that would be perfectly ok, especially if someone else agreed with it.

    that could fall under slander
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    So it's perfectly fine for someone to come here and claim "Dryan ripped me off! I was deceived by Dryan! I was misled by Dryan", not be able to prove how or why or in what manner with no supporting clear evidence to justify that claim, and that would be perfectly ok, especially if someone else agreed with it.

    Yeah, actually. It would then be between me and that other person, not some complete unknown. I'd also have a slander case, if it weren't true.

    People know full well what they were told and lead to believe. Trying to make them out as liers is both disrespectul and insulting.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Zodi-emish wrote:
    that could fall under slander

    Which is kinda what a select few here are doing...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Which is kinda what a select few here are doing...

    That would be libel. Which they aren't doing. They were mislead and that's a fact.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Clearly the US need to wake up to consumer rights other countries hold. We aren't in the dark ages, many of our laws are much more precise and comsumer focused.

    As I said before, it is quite possible that I understand neither the meaning of "exclusive," nor the part of EU legislation that makes Cryptic's actions illegal.

    Please correct my misconceptions, and provide me with appropriate evidence.

    – and before you go there, yes, it is your responsibility to provide that information. You made the claim, you have to support it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    joe_blue wrote:
    As I said before, it is quite possible that I understand neither the meaning of "exclusive," nor the part of EU legislation that makes Cryptic's actions illegal.

    Please correct my misconceptions, and provide me with appropriate evidence.

    – and before you go there, yes, it is your responsibility to provide that information. You made the claim, you have to support it.

    Why do some people always like to swing arguments over to legal converstaions, when they are wrong?

    I said unethical.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    They were mislead and that's a fact.
    You BELIEVE you were misled...some of us don't.
    Please try not to paint us all in the same portrait.
    Show it for what it is, we are on different sides of the fence.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    People know full well what they were told and lead to believe. Trying to make them out as liers is both disrespectul and insulting.

    I've never claimed you or anyone else was "lying". I've read what the Dev posts and chat logs and pre-order FAQs or whatever "evidence" was posted here. Yes, the Dev post said "Exclusive" and "unique". But how did Cryptic define them? How do you define them? If you weren't sure about it before spending the money, why didn't you ask for further clarification? What I am saying is that you misinterpreted what those words mean and heard exactly what you wanted to hear instead of what was the real meaning.

    You're not lying, you're just trying to place sole blame on everyone else but yourselves for your own poor judgment.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    You BELIEVE you were misled...some of us don't.
    Please try not to paint us all in the same portrait.
    Show it for what it is, we are on different sides of the fence.

    Believe what you want, but you have no right to deny those who were to state such.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    I've never claimed you or anyone else was "lying". I've read what the Dev posts and chat logs and pre-order FAQs or whatever "evidence" was posted here. Yes, the Dev post said "Exclusive" and "unique". But how did Cryptic define them? How do you define them? If you weren't sure about it before spending the money, why didn't you ask for further clarification? What I am saying is that you misinterpreted what those words mean and heard exactly what you wanted to hear instead of what was the real meaning.

    You're not lying, you're just trying to place sole blame on everyone else but yourselves for your own poor judgment.

    Again, this is not about the items hitting the c-store per say, its about when they have. Now is unethical, becuase like it or not people were mislead and some items have been availble for little over a month, while the game's only been out a few. If they waited, say a year it wouldn't be. There would have been hardly anyone complaining, myself included.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Accusation + evidence=justified. Accusation - evidence = slander/libel.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    LotD wrote:
    Accusation + evidence=justified. Accusation - evidence = slander/libel.

    Evidence by character is also a decent sized population stating the same fact. It isn't slander/libel until proven otherwise.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Clearly the US need to wake up to consumer rights other countries hold. We aren't in the dark ages, many of our laws are much more precise and comsumer focused.

    You're still hanging on to the argument that the laws of other countries outweight the laws of a game that is being run in the US? Yes, I know you're not talking about laws here, you are just saying the same in a different way to make it look like a new argument. You are just recycling your arguments, going around in circles, ignoring what everybody against your position is saying and always wanting to change the subject when people keep pressuring you.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    You're still hanging on to the argument that the laws of other countries outweight the laws of a game that is being run in the US? Yes, I know you're not talking about laws here, you are just saying the same in a different way to make it look like a new argument. You are just recycling your arguments, going around in circles, ignoring what everybody against your position is saying and always wanting to change the subject when people keep pressuring you.

    No I'm not even discussing laws. Other poeple keep popping bits into their conversation, trying (intentionally or not) to sideline the topic. Please, at least stay in context.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Please, don't even try to portary they didn't. Its just insulting to those affected.

    I purchased the LT Sub and the AMAZON CE with the Borg BO...so PLEASE don't try to tell me I'm not one of the "AFFECTED". Unless the Borg BO wasn't one of the items I just saw go up for sale?!?!?
    KK
    THX

    Well I purchased "exclusive" items and don't feel ripped off they were put on the c-store. I do agree they were offered up a bit sooner than I would have liked, but can't argue with the demand and the fact it seems to have made so many so happy.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Again, this is not about the item hitting the c-store per say, its about when they have. Now is unethical, becuase like it or not people were mislead and some items have been availble for little over a month, while the game's only been out a few. If they waited, say a year it wouldn't be. There would have been hardly anyone complaining, myself included.

    so, just to be clear this is all about a reasonable expectation of time duration for the usage of the terms "exclusive" and/or "unique"?

    i really hope things like this don't lead to a page and a half of fine print attached to every item given to people as bonuses. I can see it now, you have pre-ordered game X here's your fancy package, a little fancy box and a 10lbs stack of paper....
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Again, this is not about the item hitting the c-store per say, its about when they have. Now is unethical, becuase like it or not people were mislead and some items have been availble for little over a month, while the game's only been out a few. If they waited, say a year it wouldn't be. There would have been hardly anyone complaining, myself included.

    There is nothing unethical about the timing whatsoever. "Exclusive" and "Unique" does not convey any kind of timeframe. Again, your lack of understanding.

    They could have put these into the C-Store 10 years from now and you'd still have people complaining that they were "ripped off", "misled", "lied to" etc. based on their own personal definition of what "exclusive" means.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Well I purchased "exclusive" items and don't feel ripped off they were put on the c-store. I do agree they were offered up a bit sooner than I would have liked, but can't argue with the demand and the fact it seems to have made so many so happy.

    You not feeling ripped off isn't an issue, and good to you (truely). Its the to soon bit, which is causing others to feel so. So I'm personally pleased you can at least understand where people are coming from.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    There is nothing unethical about the timing whatsoever. "Exclusive" and "Unique" does not convey any kind of timeframe. Again, your lack of understanding.

    They could have put these into the C-Store 10 years from now and you'd still have people complaining that they were "ripped off", "misled", "lied to" etc. based on their own personal definition of what "exclusive" means.

    To you, not to many others. Respect that, instead of trying to prove them wrong. You won't.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Evidence by character is also a decent sized population stating the same fact. It isn't slander/libel until proven otherwise.

    Except the population has not stated the same fact. They stated the same opinion and/or belief. That is why the definition of the word exclusive is important.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Please, don't even try to portary they didn't. Its just insulting to those affected.

    They didn't. End of story. They expected you to CHOOSE ONE like everyone else did. Why? Because only an idiot would pay $60 for an (at most) $3 item. Who the hell would expect a sane person to do that?

    When I first heard someone say they bought multiple copies of STO so they could get the extras, I thought they were kidding. I seriously could not wrap my brain around someone being that... man, I don't even have a word for how unintelligent that is. I couldn't believe someone would do that. Unless you are rolling in disposable cash, then it's not a big deal. And if you are rolling in that much cash, why are you complaining?

    Bottom line is this: Let's say you eat a certain kind of cereal, and each box contains a lifetime supply of cereal, all you could ever eat. Each box costs $60. Now lets say they put out a promotion where they pack in a cheap $3 toy in those boxes (like they used to). They have several different toys out there. Would you seriously buy several boxes of cereal (you will never be able to eat more than one, no matter how much cereal you eat, and you are forbidden from giving the box of cereal away) just for that $3 toy?

    That is basically what this is all about... buying several lifetime-supply-of-cereal boxes at $60 a pop for a $3 toy.

    Don't blame Cryptic for you being stupid or naive. That was all you. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    To you, not to many others. Respect that.

    I do. I'll also continue to add that it's due to your unreasonable expectations that you feel ripped off. Place the blame where it belongs - with yourselves.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    No I'm not even discussing laws. Other poeple keep popping bits into their conversation, trying (intentionally or not) to sideline the topic. Please, at least stay in context.

    I know you are not talking laws now, but we are not the ones that keep trying to sideline the topic. People keep asking you to explain your side but all you do is say the same things over and over again without anything new to add. Then you try and sideline the topic by saying you are not talking about a certain thing when in fact you are.

    If you don't want to talk about the laws or consumer rights of the EU then quit using it in your argument.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    You not feeling not ripped off isn't an issue, and good to you (truely). Its the to soon bit, which is causing others to feel so.

    I respect the fact you feel that way. I also stated a few days ago if the game was extremely healthy and the population was a lot higher, these items wouldn't have been put up so soon. I just think Cryptic is doing what it can to ensure the players left stay happy. It sucks that some people are so angry about it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    LotD wrote:
    Except the population has not stated the same fact. They stated the same opinion and/or belief. That is why the definition of the word exclusive is important.

    Yes they have. Have you seen how many threads and posts people are making over this?
This discussion has been closed.