Anything could happen, but that doesn't mean some specific thing is at all likely to happen.
All I am offering is a chance for people to hear "no" from me for free, instead of having to pay thousands of dollars to hear it from a judge.
im not suggesting legal action would be a profitable route to take. imo the only worthwhile motivation for such would be simple spite.
but i also dont necessarily think that cryptic is a slam dunk victor by virtue of their eula or whatnot.
personally, i think the strongest action one take take against cryptic is to simply stop spending money and stop logging in.
Yeah, while I'd prefer people continued to play and support the game, that's purely a personal choice for them.
But it would be tragic to see so one suffer serious real world consequences for undertaking a foolish action made attractive only by lack of reasonable perspective or good advice.
eh let them waste money, at the very least it'd give the lawyers at cryptic/pwe something to do.
What I think could make anyone's legal argument problematic is that there are avenues to get these ships without paying money, even if tough to do. IMO that would make quantifying the "loss" in a manner that would satisfy the court quite difficult. No matter how angry anyone is over this, I think strict logic shows any attempt at some sort of legal challenge will go nowhere.
Cryptic would be well advised to never pull a stunt like this again because of what many players can and have withdrawn: their trust and their money. I hope Mr. Ricossa is taking notes on all of these incidents as things not to do going forward, on projects he has full oversight on, because if not, I don't know that the remaining goodwill of the playerbase would be able to take it under a third EP, and may conclude the company is just plain irredeemable. I am not to that point, mind you...I am simply warning what could happen.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
IANAL (yet), but having studied Law, I can assure you that persuing legal avenues would be rather fruitless.
Ultimately, though, it's not a legal matter, though, but ere one about a healthy relationship between seller and buyer. You could say it's about trust.
When Cryptic sells you something that is extremely expensive, and equally rare (the two are related, of course), and makes it a periodically recurring sale, so as to have you believe it will be an item retaining its inherent value, and then suddenly pulls the rug from under you, trust is broken. Cryptic realized this, of course; which is why they acknowledged that they needed to upgrade the old Bug ship when T6 arrived.
So, while they are under no legal obligation to do so, simple logic dictates Cryptic keep the old Bug ship on an auto-upgrade path, lest it loses its value. They have chosen to not take that route, which is their right, but probably not something I'd have done.
We should all be very grateful, I suppose, for the sake of the in game economy, that these decisions aren't left to,you, shouldn't we?
Very grateful indeed!
Who is this 'we' you're referring to?! I bet it doesn't include the people who invested in collecting old Bug ships, suddenly having to fire-sell them for a lousy 100mil now. Nope, I'm pretty confident they're not part of your 'we' at all.
To rub insult into injury they told us it would be a free upgrade to T6 capabilities in order to maximise the profits 12 days before they revealed it was actually going to lose it's preferential status and like most other ships only be upgraded to T5-U.
I read the phrase "T6 capabilities" to mean "T5-U" back when T5-U was announced. I wasn't overly thrilled with the implications of of having the Bugship no longer be top dog when the blog was announced; but there are multiple valid interpretations of the initial blog. I think it comes down to how Cryptic made an absolute hash of communicating to the playerbase about T5-U and T6 in August and September of 2014. But I never expected, based on the hedging language used in the blog, to expect my T5 Bugship to become a T6 Bugship. If Cryptic had intended that, they would have said so in their English language blog.
And I say this as someone who had a packed T5 bugship that lost a fourth of its value in the span of about a day.
But I never expected, based on the hedging language used in the blog, to expect my T5 Bugship to become a T6 Bugship. If Cryptic had intended that, they would have said so in their English language blog.
Having it turned into a full T6 ship has only become an acute issue when the old Bug ship got superseded by the new Bug ship: theretofore the old Bug ship was still 'this iconic jewel in the crown,' as mattjohnsonva put it so well, regardless of T5-U/T6 status.
Anyone who bought the JHAS because they wanted to buy the "best ship" in the game is, at best, irrational. After all, "best ship" is a subjective claim, and any thinking person should understand that it's necessarily going to shift as time progresses. Here's what's true - either you bought the ship because you liked it on its own merits, or you bought it because of your perception that it was somehow the pinnacle of "power" in the game. If you liked the ship on it's own terms, then you have no reason to be angry, because what you liked about that ship hasn't changed. You got what you paid for. If, instead, you bought the ship primarily because it was "special", or "the best", then you have no reason to be angry, since you made a terrible and obviously flawed decision. The fact that you don't want to suffer buyer's remorse doesn't mean that you shouldn't, it just means that you should learn from your mistakes.
Oh, and if your counter is "I learned not to buy the new shiny because Cryptic will just make something better and obsolete it, so this was a stupid move on their part", I have to say that I think, honestly, this is WAI as far as Cryptic is concerned. Certainly I think they would be thrilled to have purchase decisions be based more on what people liked in terms of aesthetics than in terms of "power", as it would mean they could make more things that are cool and not worry if they are under/overpowered, AND it would make them more free to make changes to things that people paid for without the screaming that people were owed refunds after having their "I win" buttons nerfed. The more Cryptic can train players away from using "power" as a primary buying guide, the better off we all are.
I may be wrong, somone who reads the ToS more carefully may be able to correct me if I am, but doesn't it reserve the right to cryptic to make changes to the game?
Has a law suit against an MMO or other video game company for changing its mind about a feature ever been successful?
Don't get me wrong, I'd be enormously amused to see someone try to sue any MMO over a nerf, I imagine it would make for very entertaining reading, but it costs actual money to launch a law suit, and I don't want to see any of my fellow players hurt financially just because they won't think something through.
This isn't about the game.... its about an advertisement. Believe it or not its still not legal to lie in your advertisements even if you have a contract with existing customers that says you are allowed to change your service any time you feel like it.
That type of defense don't work in the real world.
What the TOS protects them from is making changes at any time they like. That doesn't mean they can lie to you to get you to spend money and then not follow through on something promised in an ad.
The TOS legal protections don't cover false advertising.
This isn't about the game.... its about an advertisement. Believe it or not its still not legal to lie in your advertisements even if you have a contract with existing customers that says you are allowed to change your service any time you feel like it.
That type of defense don't work in the real world.
What the TOS protects them from is making changes at any time they like. That doesn't mean they can lie to you to get you to spend money and then not follow through on something promised in an ad.
The TOS legal protections don't cover false advertising.
And if Cryptic had ever advertised the original bugship as the definitive, no-questions-asked, never-to-be-surpassed best ship in the game, you would have a point.
But, since they didn't, you don't.
They advertised an in-game item with certain abilities, and that's what they delivered. They're currently advertising a new item with arguably superior abilities. Them's the breaks. If we're all spared, and the game lasts long enough, there'll be a T7 bugship that makes the current one look like a Morris Traveller. Deal with it.
The ambiguity of the original blogs is just a distraction. Trying to bring a legal stance to it is just fruitless and despite people's perceived investment in the game, it's just a virtual ship that was well overpriced and viewed as the pinnacle long after it fell from grace.
LoR should have spelt it's demise from the over 500M+ club, but it didn't due to market controls by peeps who had too many of them or too much money to allow them to go down below the 500M mark. The ******** is similar to those who would be Hedge fund managers, when the rug get's pulled from under them they either drop like a stone or get angry. There's a lot of anger here...
Chris Robert's on SC:
"You don't have to do something again and again and again repetitive that doesn't have much challange, that's just a general good gameplay thing."
So who is going to be the sacrificial lamb that tries to sue them over this?
I would sue them for gambling part first lol, and after that for false advertisement.
Can't say anything about the chances, because there are a number of factors to consider.
But instead of pumping more thousands $ in to Craps casino, I would sue them....perhaps start a crowd funded law suit for STO players. Sadly (or maybe luckily) I did not gamble for the assault ship back then :P.
I would sue them for gambling part first lol, and after that for false advertisement.
Can't say anything about the chances, because there are a number of factors to consider.
But instead of pumping more thousands $ in to Craps casino, I would sue them....perhaps start a crowd funded law suit for STO players. Sadly (or maybe luckily) I did not gamble for the assault ship back then :P.
yea a class action lawsuit would have to be the way to go.
problem is getting the support outside the forums since there's no way they'd allow talk like this on the forums.
Best post ever,still can't believe some posters don't known they are playing an mmo,let me share some of my knowledge it might help all those morons who don't really know what an mmo is.
Many of you are missing the point that has angered many.
It isn't a point of, oh no they expect us to spend more $.
That is a given in a mmo you folks are correct.
Where the issue for most of us that are annoyed with Cryptic is this.
We ALL know that upgrading is a standard part of playing an online video game... however....
In this Case Cryptic back last Aug. was LOOSING Sales. Because we all KNEW that a new tier of ships and a level cap increase was coming. SO people help there $ back... cause why buy something that is going to be outdated in a few weeks right.
So Cryptic Ran an AD... on there main page... that stated. Don't wait for the new stuff... buy the current stuff and when the new stuff comes we will upgrade it for you for free... cause we want your money right now.
Then they reneged on their promise. That is the issue.
If a company runs an add that was to say... new 2017 models next month... but don't wait buy the last of our 2016 models and we'll let you drive them back and get the new model for free when they come in. (Yes perhaps people would be right to question that offer... but if the company didn't follow through would they be doing something illegal ?... yes they would)
No no no no, you like many others who join a long running debate have not read what has already been said. This has been covered in great detail, they DID NOT deliver what they advertised, THAT is the point, they have even brought the EP in here to apologise for that AND altered 7 month old blogs for reasons best known to themselves.
I do wish people would take the time to read the whole thread before dropping in at the end and then us having to constantly repeat ourselves.
The only thing that needs - apparently - to be constantly repeated is this: you have no case.
You have not even the shadow of the glimmer of the ghost of the faintest vestige of a case.
Any ethical lawyer will take a fee, consider the situation, and tell you this. Any unethical lawyer will take a fee, consider the situation, and ask for more fees until you stop paying, at which point they'll tell you this. An unethical and stupid lawyer will take a fee, take the case to court, lose, and then tell you this (and bill you for court costs). All I'm doing is saving you some time and money here.
Comments
im not suggesting legal action would be a profitable route to take. imo the only worthwhile motivation for such would be simple spite.
but i also dont necessarily think that cryptic is a slam dunk victor by virtue of their eula or whatnot.
personally, i think the strongest action one take take against cryptic is to simply stop spending money and stop logging in.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
eh let them waste money, at the very least it'd give the lawyers at cryptic/pwe something to do.
Cryptic would be well advised to never pull a stunt like this again because of what many players can and have withdrawn: their trust and their money. I hope Mr. Ricossa is taking notes on all of these incidents as things not to do going forward, on projects he has full oversight on, because if not, I don't know that the remaining goodwill of the playerbase would be able to take it under a third EP, and may conclude the company is just plain irredeemable. I am not to that point, mind you...I am simply warning what could happen.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Ultimately, though, it's not a legal matter, though, but ere one about a healthy relationship between seller and buyer. You could say it's about trust.
When Cryptic sells you something that is extremely expensive, and equally rare (the two are related, of course), and makes it a periodically recurring sale, so as to have you believe it will be an item retaining its inherent value, and then suddenly pulls the rug from under you, trust is broken. Cryptic realized this, of course; which is why they acknowledged that they needed to upgrade the old Bug ship when T6 arrived.
So, while they are under no legal obligation to do so, simple logic dictates Cryptic keep the old Bug ship on an auto-upgrade path, lest it loses its value. They have chosen to not take that route, which is their right, but probably not something I'd have done.
Who is this 'we' you're referring to?! I bet it doesn't include the people who invested in collecting old Bug ships, suddenly having to fire-sell them for a lousy 100mil now. Nope, I'm pretty confident they're not part of your 'we' at all.
I read the phrase "T6 capabilities" to mean "T5-U" back when T5-U was announced. I wasn't overly thrilled with the implications of of having the Bugship no longer be top dog when the blog was announced; but there are multiple valid interpretations of the initial blog. I think it comes down to how Cryptic made an absolute hash of communicating to the playerbase about T5-U and T6 in August and September of 2014. But I never expected, based on the hedging language used in the blog, to expect my T5 Bugship to become a T6 Bugship. If Cryptic had intended that, they would have said so in their English language blog.
And I say this as someone who had a packed T5 bugship that lost a fourth of its value in the span of about a day.
Having it turned into a full T6 ship has only become an acute issue when the old Bug ship got superseded by the new Bug ship: theretofore the old Bug ship was still 'this iconic jewel in the crown,' as mattjohnsonva put it so well, regardless of T5-U/T6 status.
Oh, and if your counter is "I learned not to buy the new shiny because Cryptic will just make something better and obsolete it, so this was a stupid move on their part", I have to say that I think, honestly, this is WAI as far as Cryptic is concerned. Certainly I think they would be thrilled to have purchase decisions be based more on what people liked in terms of aesthetics than in terms of "power", as it would mean they could make more things that are cool and not worry if they are under/overpowered, AND it would make them more free to make changes to things that people paid for without the screaming that people were owed refunds after having their "I win" buttons nerfed. The more Cryptic can train players away from using "power" as a primary buying guide, the better off we all are.
This isn't about the game.... its about an advertisement. Believe it or not its still not legal to lie in your advertisements even if you have a contract with existing customers that says you are allowed to change your service any time you feel like it.
That type of defense don't work in the real world.
What the TOS protects them from is making changes at any time they like. That doesn't mean they can lie to you to get you to spend money and then not follow through on something promised in an ad.
The TOS legal protections don't cover false advertising.
I have been so far unlucky to win the SS, but I have enough lobi to buy a Vaadwaur ship that I traded in to get the Manasa
This thing is a power house ... and I don't even have access to the higher intel abilities yet, I can only imagine
But, since they didn't, you don't.
They advertised an in-game item with certain abilities, and that's what they delivered. They're currently advertising a new item with arguably superior abilities. Them's the breaks. If we're all spared, and the game lasts long enough, there'll be a T7 bugship that makes the current one look like a Morris Traveller. Deal with it.
LoR should have spelt it's demise from the over 500M+ club, but it didn't due to market controls by peeps who had too many of them or too much money to allow them to go down below the 500M mark. The ******** is similar to those who would be Hedge fund managers, when the rug get's pulled from under them they either drop like a stone or get angry. There's a lot of anger here...
"You don't have to do something again and again and again repetitive that doesn't have much challange, that's just a general good gameplay thing."
Can't say anything about the chances, because there are a number of factors to consider.
But instead of pumping more thousands $ in to Craps casino, I would sue them....perhaps start a crowd funded law suit for STO players. Sadly (or maybe luckily) I did not gamble for the assault ship back then :P.
Holy Grail of Gamification is Addiction | 5 Ways to Accomplisch | and the Psychology of Freemium
yea a class action lawsuit would have to be the way to go.
problem is getting the support outside the forums since there's no way they'd allow talk like this on the forums.
Many of you are missing the point that has angered many.
It isn't a point of, oh no they expect us to spend more $.
That is a given in a mmo you folks are correct.
Where the issue for most of us that are annoyed with Cryptic is this.
We ALL know that upgrading is a standard part of playing an online video game... however....
In this Case Cryptic back last Aug. was LOOSING Sales. Because we all KNEW that a new tier of ships and a level cap increase was coming. SO people help there $ back... cause why buy something that is going to be outdated in a few weeks right.
So Cryptic Ran an AD... on there main page... that stated. Don't wait for the new stuff... buy the current stuff and when the new stuff comes we will upgrade it for you for free... cause we want your money right now.
Then they reneged on their promise. That is the issue.
If a company runs an add that was to say... new 2017 models next month... but don't wait buy the last of our 2016 models and we'll let you drive them back and get the new model for free when they come in. (Yes perhaps people would be right to question that offer... but if the company didn't follow through would they be doing something illegal ?... yes they would)
You have not even the shadow of the glimmer of the ghost of the faintest vestige of a case.
Any ethical lawyer will take a fee, consider the situation, and tell you this. Any unethical lawyer will take a fee, consider the situation, and ask for more fees until you stop paying, at which point they'll tell you this. An unethical and stupid lawyer will take a fee, take the case to court, lose, and then tell you this (and bill you for court costs). All I'm doing is saving you some time and money here.