As simple as that, it was false advertising. They should, at least, give us some kind of compensation.

 

I don't even care about the money, it's the feeling that they have cheated me and did this on purpose, that they know that they wouldn't be able to release the expansion that day, or even close, and keep silent about it to gain subs.

False Advertising according to 15 USC § 1125 (2011)

§1125. False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

(a) Civil action

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

(2) As used in this subsection, the term “any person” includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.

(b) Importation

Any goods marked or labeled in contravention of the provisions of this section shall not be imported into the United States or admitted to entry at any customhouse of the United States. The owner, importer, or consignee of goods refused entry at any customhouse under this section may have any recourse by protest or appeal that is given under the customs revenue laws or may have the remedy given by this chapter in cases involving goods refused entry or seized.

© Dilution by blurring; dilution by tarnishment

(1) Injunctive relief

Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner's mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.

(2) Definitions

(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. In determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:

(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.

(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.

(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.

(iv) Whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

(B) For purposes of paragraph (1), “dilution by blurring” is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. In determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:

(i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

(ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark.

(iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark.

(iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark.

(v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark.

(vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

© For purposes of paragraph (1), “dilution by tarnishment” is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.

(3) Exclusions

The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:

(A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person's own goods or services, including use in connection with—

(i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or

(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.

(B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

© Any noncommercial use of a mark.

(4) Burden of proof

In a civil action for trade dress dilution under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that—

(A) the claimed trade dress, taken as a whole, is not functional and is famous; and

(B) if the claimed trade dress includes any mark or marks registered on the principal register, the unregistered matter, taken as a whole, is famous separate and apart from any fame of such registered marks.

(5) Additional remedies

In an action brought under this subsection, the owner of the famous mark shall be entitled to injunctive relief as set forth in section 1116 of this title. The owner of the famous mark shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in sections 1117(a) and 1118 of this title, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity if—

(A) the mark or trade name that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment was first used in commerce by the person against whom the injunction is sought after October 6, 2006; and

(B) in a claim arising under this subsection—

(i) by reason of dilution by blurring, the person against whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the famous mark; or

(ii) by reason of dilution by tarnishment, the person against whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to harm the reputation of the famous mark.

(6) Ownership of valid registration a complete bar to action

The ownership by a person of a valid registration under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register under this chapter shall be a complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that—

(A)(i) is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a State; and

(ii) seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment; or

(B) asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.

(7) Savings clause

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to impair, modify, or supersede the applicability of the patent laws of the United States.

(d) Cyberpiracy prevention

(1)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person—

(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and

(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that—

(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;

(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or

(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18 or section 220506 of title 36.

(B)(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to—

(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;

(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;

(IV) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;

(V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;

(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VIII) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and

(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection ©.

(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.

© In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.

(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's authorized licensee.

(E) As used in this paragraph, the term “traffics in” refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.

(2)(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if—

(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or © of this section; and

(ii) the court finds that the owner—

(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or

(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by—

(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and

(bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.

(B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of process.

© In an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain name shall be deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which—

(i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located; or

(ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court.

(D)(i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority shall—

(I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the court's control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name to the court; and

(II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pendency of the action, except upon order of the court.

(ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority shall not be liable for injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard, which includes a willful failure to comply with any such court order.

(3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action established under paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such action, shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable.

(4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in addition to any other jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or in personam.

In addition, they are still releasing the expansion so there would be very few attorneys that would touch that as the only thing that has been done, is it being delayed and they do have in their Terms of Service and Rules of Conduct that they are allowed to change things/dates if they see it needs to be done.

Read very carefully the very last sentence in my post that you quoted.

I agree with your last sentence, just not your object for comparison i.e. it's goods vs. services. In this case, the service (expanded gameplay) is not being rendered during the time purchased (1-2 month sub).

If I were using your example, it would be akin to those clearly labelled hammers not having a handle ..... or being charged the fee for a hammer to enter the store then finding the rack empty.

I agree with your last sentence, just not your object for comparison i.e. it's goods vs. services. In this case, the service (expanded gameplay) is not being rendered during the time purchased (1-2 month sub).

 

If I were using your example, it would be akin to those clearly labelled hammers not having a handle ..... or being charged the fee for a hammer to enter the store then finding the rack empty.

Wrong again kiddo.

You get access to all expansions at the time of subscription.

Future expansions become available when and if they are released.

Stop lying to yourself - its in the fine print - its legal - you may not like it - but it doesn't give you the right to be an donkey about it.

You people are so self entitled its a wonder anything gets done at all without getting shot down in a hail of gunfire over something as stupid as your ignorance.

If you had bought an expansion - that would be different - this is a subscription. You ASSUMED it would have an expansion launched in that time window.

You GUESSED wrong. - Companies are free to do as they see fit within reason - like it or not - they own this game and everything in it - you are subject to the terms and conditions of which you AGREED too when you subscribed.

Don't like it - take a hike. Anything else is a waste of time.

This isn't fraud - its not a rip off - its not extortion.

Any lawyer worth his salt would laugh at you if you tried to make a case.

Customer service consenting to your "Demands" (air-quotes) would be a courtesy to get you to shut up and walk away at best. They don't even have too at that rate - because its in the damn fine-print that you oh so refused to read before you clicked "buy"

This is allll on you.

I don't want a refund, but I am definitely unsubbing.

The last minute delay of the expansion is extremely shady, and I'm not paying another 2 months sub in the hopes they actually launch in Feb.

I might come back in Feb, after I wait and see if the expansion is even any good...which I am starting to think it'll be a joke.

How far this game has fallen...

Wrong again kiddo.

You get access to all expansions at the time of subscription.

Future expansions become available when and if they are released.

 

Stop lying to yourself - its in the fine print - its legal - you may not like it - but it doesn't give you the right to be an donkey about it.

 

You people are so self entitled its a wonder anything gets done at all without getting shot down in a hail of gunfire over something as stupid as your ignorance.

 

If you had bought an expansion - that would be different - this is a subscription. You ASSUMED it would have an expansion launched in that time window.

 

You GUESSED wrong. - Companies are free to do as they see fit within reason - like it or not - they own this game and everything in it - you are subject to the terms and conditions of which you AGREED too when you subscribed.

 

Don't like it - take a hike. Anything else is a waste of time.

 

This isn't fraud - its not a rip off - its not extortion.

Any lawyer worth his salt would laugh at you if you tried to make a case.

Customer service consenting to your "Demands" (air-quotes) would be a courtesy to get you to shut up and walk away at best. They don't even have too at that rate - because its in the damn fine-print that you oh so refused to read before you clicked "buy"

 

This is allll on you.

They officially announced the release date three weeks back. One week before the release, they announce a hefty two month delay. In this context (game studios, release dates, posponding stuff) this is a very unusual combination of dates. Of course people who subscribed for two months with expansion in mind end up feeling ripped off. They came back for a new expansion, paid money to play the new expansion and got no new expansion. How could they not feel ripped off? Stuff borderlining on schadenfreude and waving some copypasted EULA bits around does nothing to change this. So Bioware didn't break their own EULA when doing this. Woohoo. That's great. If bar set to this height is something you like crossing then by all means, have fun with it.

Assuming on, say, December 1st that release date two weeks away, one given less than two weeks back, would hold water is a very safe assumption to make. People learn to mistrust from experience. I'm quite sure nobody here has been burned in this particular way before. I mean..do you remember this happening anywhere else? When it comes to expansions of MMOs in live dev, Can you think of a three week old release date announcment that gets pushed back for two months mere week before the said release? It is a very unusual combination of dates. Sum of all parts here absolutely rips off people who bought two month sub to play the expansion.

No personal horses in this race.When it comes to game features, I'm here for GSF, not for occasional bi-yearly two hour long story droplets. So personally, in some narrow sense, I don't mind much about coming expansion one way or another. On principle, I think it is always good to postpond stuff and release it finished instead of rushing out something half finished. Delays of this nature happen all the time. It is the timeline involved that makes this a very unusual,unlikely and wretched move.

They officially announced the release date three weeks back. One week before the release, they announce a hefty two month delay. In this context (game studios, release dates, posponding stuff) this is a very unusual combination of dates. Of course people who subscribed for two months with expansion in mind end up feeling ripped off. They came back for a new expansion, paid money to play the new expansion and got no new expansion. How could they not feel ripped off? Stuff borderlining on schadenfreude and waving some copypasted EULA bits around does nothing to change this. So Bioware didn't break their own EULA when doing this. Woohoo. That's great. If bar set to this height is something you like crossing then by all means, have fun with it.

 

Assuming on, say, December 1st that release date two weeks away, one given two weeks back, would hold water is a very safe assumption to make. People learn to mistrust from experience. I'm quite sure nobody here has been burned in this particular way before. I mean..do you remember this happening anywhere else? When it comes to expansions of MMOs in live dev, Can you think of a three week old release date announcment that gets pushed back for two months mere week before the said release? It is a very unusual combination of dates. Sum of all parts here absolutely rips off people who bought two month sub to play the expansion.

 

 

No personal horses in this race.When it comes to game features, I'm here for GSF, not for occasional bi-yearly two hour long story droplets. So personally, in some narrow sense, I don't mind much about coming expansion one way or another. On principle, I think it is always good to postpond stuff and release it finished instead of rushing out something half finished. It is the timeline involved that makes this a very unusual,unlikely and wretched move.

But it is not a rip off.

Again - read the fine print. I challenge everyone here to go read what it really says in the subscription terms.

Not once did it ever say "You will receive expansions on time"

You are delusional if you think it entitles you to compensation.

Is it good? No.

Am I happy they did that? I'm more upset they didn't disclose why - beyond that I don't give a damn.

Lets also point out the severe negative feedback on the expansion all together - people continue to ignore that - baffles me to no end.

It's kind of obvious this expansion was doomed from the start if not overshadowed by numerous issues.

Don't come crying to me if you subbed up ignoring the obvious writing on the wall.

No one was burned but only by their own hands in making an assumption (and how do we spell assumption again?) that they would be on time - and normally most companies tend to be on time more or less - however that is not a law - its not a hard and fast rule - its a presumption - and one that is subject to any number of problems.

Example - I dropped a cool 3-400 bucks on a game that is not yet out yet. Set to release in 2022-2023 there abouts.

If they delay the launch - am I to be refunded for lost time? No.

I read the fine print - its a pledge - a donation to further a goal.

I would get some swag and an "upgraded" version of the game when it launches.

I've already seen people lose their #### over not getting a quarterly news update or it being 3 weeks late.

Or any number of petty stupid things.

We live in a generation of self entitlement that is obscenely over the top insane.

Now if my game never arrives - well I took a bet it would - that's on me.

Would I be upset? Maybe - but am I going to scream murder over it?

Not worth the time - because I took the time to reason out the pros/cons.

Now if people took the time to think about that when they make these purchases - they may find their lives a little bit easier.

Excuses don't help anyone....nor does blaming others for their decisions.

I for one am thankful they are delaying the launch - gives me hope they will perhaps fix the issues that everyone is screaming about in the expansion tests....one can only hope.

But as usual - people will always find a way to complain....and complain they will..till they turn blue in the face.

Bottom line - the subscription is a subscription - there's no strings attached - the expansions are a benefit - that doesn't mean its automatic and certainly doesn't mean its guaranteed.

They can sub up again down the road for that benefit - but hopefully this time they will take the time to consider the history and maybe be cautious about it this time.

The evidence is there - you just have to pay attention to it.

Faith and Trust are all good - but verify - that's the hard work right there.

If you had doubts or questions - you should stop.

The decision made is on the buyer - not the company in this case.

Wrong again kiddo.

You get access to all expansions at the time of subscription.

Future expansions become available when and if they are released.

 

Stop lying to yourself - its in the fine print - its legal - you may not like it - but it doesn't give you the right to be an donkey about it.

 

You people are so self entitled its a wonder anything gets done at all without getting shot down in a hail of gunfire over something as stupid as your ignorance.

 

If you had bought an expansion - that would be different - this is a subscription. You ASSUMED it would have an expansion launched in that time window.

 

You GUESSED wrong. - Companies are free to do as they see fit within reason - like it or not - they own this game and everything in it - you are subject to the terms and conditions of which you AGREED too when you subscribed.

 

Don't like it - take a hike. Anything else is a waste of time.

 

This isn't fraud - its not a rip off - its not extortion.

Any lawyer worth his salt would laugh at you if you tried to make a case.

Customer service consenting to your "Demands" (air-quotes) would be a courtesy to get you to shut up and walk away at best. They don't even have too at that rate - because its in the damn fine-print that you oh so refused to read before you clicked "buy"

 

This is allll on you.

I'm neither lying to myself nor asking for a refund. I've been here since Beta and will stay here until it closes because Star Wars.

Fine print and being legal doesn't mean questionable business behavior, which this could be considered when you look at the timing/sequence of events, shouldn't be called out or change demanded.

In this case, the subscription and the expansion are one and the same because they're bundled. You cannot buy the expansion separately. You cannot play the expansion without a sub. The sub/expansion was advertised as available on a certain date. People subscribed because they were told it would be available on a certain date. That date shifted. The product they are receiving now (sub minus expansion) for the money they paid, is not what was promised (sub with expansion). Reasonably, people (who want it) should be able to get a refund, or deferral, of sub-time to when the expansion becomes available.

False Advertising according to 15 USC § 1125 (2011)

§1125. False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

 

Spammy wall of text copy pasta.

Nobody is saying they should be sued or have to go to court. I don't know how many times that has been posted here - I've lost count.

This is strictly something they said they would do, then at the last minute changed their minds after a large number of people subbed BECAUSE of what BIOWARE proclaimed. It is a customer service issue, a trust issue and a taking advantage of people issue.

It is dishonest. If they think it is going to be postponed 2 more months they knew it for longer then a week ago. They just wanted that sub money for December. It really is that simple.

They can choose or not to make it right via refund or whatever but you have a lot of people that feel played and taken advantage of because of what they did and how they did it.

This was clearly a bait and switch and the usual Capt Save-A-Dev brigade out on full patrol to tell people how stupid they were for believing Bioware or whatever. Just gross.

I'm neither lying to myself nor asking for a refund. I've been here since Beta and will stay here until it closes because Star Wars.

 

Fine print and being legal doesn't mean questionable business behavior, which this could be considered when you look at the timing/sequence of events, shouldn't be called out or change demanded.

 

In this case, the subscription and the expansion are one and the same because they're bundled. You cannot buy the expansion separately. You cannot play the expansion without a sub. The sub/expansion was advertised as available on a certain date. People subscribed because they were told it would be available on a certain date. That date shifted. The product they are receiving now (sub minus expansion) for the money they paid, is not what was promised (sub with expansion). Reasonably, people (who want it) should be able to get a refund, or deferral, of sub-time to when the expansion becomes available.

You guys love to shove random words into things that are not applicable.

They are not bundled...it is a benefit or a "Perk" if you prefer. For as long as your subscribed you get the benefit of it. If it lapses - you keep whatever expansions you had acquired during that period of time.

Again - as I said - no where did your agreement said you where guaranteed to get expansions on time.

Whether or not they get a refund is up to BW - but it is not something we are entitled too.

Same thing applies to EVE Online - except expansions are not optional but it applies none the less. This is not a new system or a methodology. Get used to it. It's not going away.

Companies change their minds all the time - if you don't like it - then your wallet should do the talking.

They officially announced the release date three weeks back. One week before the release, they announce a hefty two month delay. In this context (game studios, release dates, posponding stuff) this is a very unusual combination of dates. Of course people who subscribed for two months with expansion in mind end up feeling ripped off. They came back for a new expansion, paid money to play the new expansion and got no new expansion. How could they not feel ripped off? Stuff borderlining on schadenfreude and waving some copypasted EULA bits around does nothing to change this. So Bioware didn't break their own EULA when doing this. Woohoo. That's great. If bar set to this height is something you like crossing then by all means, have fun with it.

 

Assuming on, say, December 1st that release date two weeks away, one given less than two weeks back, would hold water is a very safe assumption to make. People learn to mistrust from experience. I'm quite sure nobody here has been burned in this particular way before. I mean..do you remember this happening anywhere else? When it comes to expansions of MMOs in live dev, Can you think of a three week old release date announcment that gets pushed back for two months mere week before the said release? It is a very unusual combination of dates. Sum of all parts here absolutely rips off people who bought two month sub to play the expansion.

 

 

No personal horses in this race.When it comes to game features, I'm here for GSF, not for occasional bi-yearly two hour long story droplets. So personally, in some narrow sense, I don't mind much about coming expansion one way or another. On principle, I think it is always good to postpond stuff and release it finished instead of rushing out something half finished. Delays of this nature happen all the time. It is the timeline involved that makes this a very unusual,unlikely and wretched move.

Pay them no mind, they just want to argue how small words in the eula work. It was crappy how BW did it, but for some reason some people (Capt' Save-a-Devs) like to argue about how it was legal disregarding the ethics of it.

Legal does not mean fair. Legal does not mean the customer was not screwed over. Legal does not mean people don't feel they were lied to paying for something this month they are not going to get.

The sub and Xpac were all in one this month as it was advertised and scheduled. It was not delivered so the people that payed for the Xpac and sub are only getting half of what they were told they would get when they spent their money.

Legal or not it is crappy service. People arguing the contrary just want to argue.

Pay them no mind, they just want to argue how small words in the eula work. It was crappy how BW did it, but for some reason some people (Capt' Save-a-Devs) like to argue about how it was legal disregarding the ethics of it.

 

Legal does not mean fair. Legal does not mean the customer was not screwed over. Legal does not mean people don't feel they were lied to paying for something this month they are not going to get.

 

The sub and Xpac were all in one this month as it was advertised and scheduled. It was not delivered so the people that payed for the Xpac and sub are only getting half of what they were told they would get when they spent their money.

 

Legal or not it is crappy service. People arguing the contrary just want to argue.

Where does it say it in your subscription agreement that it was to be here on the day BW originally posted?

Right....you're just making stuff up.

Keep trying please.

Where does it say it in your subscription agreement that it was to be here on the day BW originally posted?

 

Right....you're just making stuff up.

Keep trying please.

I like how you answer your own questions you pose to others in the most sarcastic of ways. Do you work for BW customer service?

Also, your question makes no sense - please reformulate it.

Don't just don't be Capt Save-a-Dev. People are legit mad because they were lied to/misled and payed for an update they are not getting. It was false advertising. You cannot proclaim "you get x this month" then people pay and you don't get "x". It is unprofessional as hell. False advertising.

 

I pay a sub and have from launch. them not knowing they were going to roll it out for another 2 months just a week from the scheduled drop date is crap and you know it. People payed money for something that was not delivered. I had friends sign up for the month of Dec BECAUSE of the expansion. They are not following thru with their end. I am for those people to get a refund.

Read what I posted before going on a tirade

I fully understand why people would be mad, but you did not pay for the expansion. You paid for a subscription. They are under no obligation to refund you since you did receive the goods you paid for. So asking for a refund is frankly insane. It will not happen

What might be possible is some form of consolation event (ex. 2x XP, collections unlock sale, general CM sale etc.). Start asking for that instead and maybe we'll actually get somewhere. I can assure you BW is going to ignore any refund related thread/post.

 

I fully understand why people would be mad,

Good, we agree. Leave me alone.

Christ, was it so hard to use a brain once in a while and just sub on 14th? You know, to maximize gaming time?

whats with this assumption? People are using their heads, they are subbing a little early to get back into the grove of things and be prepared for when the expansion drops. Some of us plan on playing a little longer than a months sub depending on how well the expansion and changes are, some may become regulars.

Read what I posted before going on a tirade

 

I fully understand why people would be mad, but you did not pay for the expansion. You paid for a subscription. They are under no obligation to refund you since you did receive the goods you paid for. So asking for a refund is frankly insane. It will not happen

 

What might be possible is some form of consolation event (ex. 2x XP, collections unlock sale, general CM sale etc.). Start asking for that instead and maybe we'll actually get somewhere. I can assure you BW is going to ignore any refund related thread/post.

it's impossible to pay for the expansion, so that is in fact off the table.. there are no preorders. We paid a little early in preparation of the expansion launching on dec 14th, otherwise some would not have paid until feb, so we lost at least a month or two worth of sub fees if we don't want to play much until the expansion launches. This should be a no brainer and super easy to comprehend. I'm not sure about a refund but some cartel coins would suffice and show good favor from the development team.

The fact that you are unsubbed makes your defense of the Devs regarding the timing of their announcement disingenuous at best because YOU are unaffected. I unsubbed earlier in the year because the game was becoming a grinding chore. What little new content was released couldn't even be played with someone else like the original story missions. So it was time to give it a rest. I resubbed last week after the release date was announced so I could write down all the keybinds/powers of alts to figure out where the new versions of combat style powers would go.

 

Then BAM - only one week before release, it's postponed. Hey, I'm fine with it getting pushed back (like you, I doubted it would be ready) but they JUST announced the release date LESS THAN THREE WEEKS AGO. Having worked on high pressure projects with a lot of moving parts, I know that being less than one month away from release the team would know whether they stood a chance to make it. If they're pushing it back with just one week to go, that means THEY KNEW.

 

They knew last week. They knew the week before. The only reason the date was announced when they had little confidence it could be realized was to - in essence - TRICK people into resubscribing right before the date. End of November should have been the cut off for the push back announcement they KNEW they would have to make. Waiting this long was a clear cut subscriber grab. Now their December numbers are still boosted even though they won't deliver the product that people re-subbed to get... and KNEW they COULDN'T deliver it well before then. But pushing it back in November would have cost them thousands of dollars in new or re-upped subscriptions.

 

So, honestly, you saying you're sure this announcement wasn't done with a dishonest intention when it doesn't even affect you is as shady as their "surprise" and "angst" over having to make it.

Just because I’ve cancelled my sub before this, doesn’t mean my opinion is any less valid.

I can be upset with their announced changes and examples on the PTS because I’ve seen the evidence.

But I’ve seen no evidence that BioWare did this late postponement on purpose to sucker people in.

I will admit it is a late announcement and I can see why some people might be thinking it’s shady.

Because BioWare aren’t usually transparent and they have done shady stuff in the past, ie not telling us they were moving west coast server to east coast.

People are welcome to their opinion, mine is I don’t think they did this on purpose.

And I’d need to see some more compelling arguments than this or evidence to change that opinion.

Um, I think the xpac will be out within the 6 months. 🤔

I’ll have some of that action. What odds are you offering 😉

I’ll have some of that action. What odds are you offering 😉

100cc on

March 8, 2022. i'll put it down before i hear the odds i like to be extra risky

I'd say its more comparable to purchasing a ticket for a performance. If you buy a ticket to see a movie, arrive a few minutes early so you can get popcorn and good seats, then sit down and the movie doesn't play due to technical.....you'd expect management to offer you a refund, raincheck for another showtime or let you go see a different film.

 

You wouldn't expect them to say 'hey you got to come in, walk around, spend more money at the concession stand and sit in our chairs so we're just gonna keep your money".

 

It may not be required by law, but it is an appropriate customer service gesture. EA has been trying to build hype around this to attract new/returning players. They KNOW people having been subbing in anticipation. I'm honestly surprised they didn't include a 'click here to get your money back & return to F2P status if you subbed just for this' option with the announcement.

Thank you for being reasonable. Way too many people in response to this situation sound like they would also be defending EA lootboxes because "well you don't have to buy them it's optional".

Thank you for being reasonable. Way too many people in response to this situation sound like they would also be defending EA lootboxes because "well you don't have to buy them it's optional".

As evident by this thread there are a lot of people on the internet willing to defend and make excuses for bad behavior for some unknown reason.... Imagine trying to defend the legality of shady business and seeing it as a sensible outlook.

Its good to call things out and confront them. Its a sign of a healthy and mature outlook. Making excuses or turning the other cheek when the party in question hasn't learned or shown any aspect of growth... Is simply a fools' errand.

As always don't feed the toxic parts of the community imo. Difference of opinions is fine, that superiority complex stuff people need to check their egos.

Thank you for being reasonable. Way too many people in response to this situation sound like they would also be defending EA lootboxes because "well you don't have to buy them it's optional".

I saw this post after making a similar argument about a idea that it's the Players fault Somehow for Expecting a Service that You (BW) Said you planned to provide for a Price ( Sub ) on This Day...Am guessing these same folks are Ok paying for Food only to not get The Hamburger until Next week when the meat arrives