Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Donald X.]

Will it be possible to not take either transfer option and save RGG some money?
As I have had the sets for years I would be happy to pay again.

Oh dude it's fine, we don't need the money. We are getting paid less, not paying; it amounts to the same thing but feels better.

It's just a fact to trot out when someone is all, why didn't we get more. Arguably we started negotiations in a poor position, due to not knowing the full details of what was going on at MF. If we had it to do again we might do better. But it's all for a good cause. I'm not complaining, at least not if things work out with ShuffleiT; I am just explaining how we ended up not giving existing customers more.

[ackmondual]

Wow I have never seen such ridiculous terms of service. "You buy virtual goods for $90, but we have the right to 'eliminate' them at our sole discretion without refund"? That's like iTunes saying "We may delete any music you have bought whenever we want". These terms are clearly invalid under unfair contract term laws.

Um... this sort of thing is common in every online game I've ever played.  Botting in Hearthstone?  Banned, all your stuff is gone.  Selling gold in WOW (or similar currency in other MMOs)?  Banned, all your stuff is gone.  Being such a complete asshole in DOTA that you get reported multiple times per game?  Banned, all your stuff is gone.

Not to mention the occasions where Amazon removed ebooks from people's Kindles, in one instance because they discovered that the person selling 1984 didn't actually have an appropriate licence for it, and in another when they claimed the person's account was somehow associated with an abuse of their rules so they wiped everything.

Did they at least refund those purchases?

[Skandrino]

Wow I have never seen such ridiculous terms of service. "You buy virtual goods for $90, but we have the right to 'eliminate' them at our sole discretion without refund"? That's like iTunes saying "We may delete any music you have bought whenever we want". These terms are clearly invalid under unfair contract term laws.

Um... this sort of thing is common in every online game I've ever played.  Botting in Hearthstone?  Banned, all your stuff is gone.  Selling gold in WOW (or similar currency in other MMOs)?  Banned, all your stuff is gone.  Being such a complete asshole in DOTA that you get reported multiple times per game?  Banned, all your stuff is gone.

Yeah, that's different because that only happens if you cheat, if you don't do that then it will never happen.

I play Hearthstone and actually after knowing this would happen with Dominion, I checked their ToS before buying something, and they have nothing that allows them to delete your items "at their sole discretion".

The 1984 books on Kindle were refunded. I can't think of any case where you virtual goods are just deleted without a refund when you have not done something against the rules.

It's interesting how most people here just assume that whatever is in the Terms and Conditions is valid. Terms need to be reasonable to be legally valid. Do you really think if some Terms from a physical store said "we can come take this item back from you anytime and you will not get a refund", they would be valid?

The same principles apply for the digital economy, this is essential for there to be any faith in the digital economy at all.

The problem I have is not with RG or Stef/SCSN but with Making Fun selling their product less than a year before it expires. They might not have known that they would not regain the contract but they should at least have mentioned that you only buy access until the end of 2016 "and possibly beyond". (Actually, I think they're still selling it now, while they know it's going to expire, which would be pretty bad).

Making Fun have not purported to sell me a service but a lasting product. I deal I bought was called "complete my collection", not "get access". Note that "my" means that I get to own it. If you own something then others are not allowed to just take it away from you.

[Jimmmmm]

I can't think of any case where you virtual goods are just deleted without a refund when you have not done something against the rules.

When the company closes down and can no longer offer you the service? When Hearthstone/LOL/DOTA/etc close down, you will no longer have access to the stuff you bought.

Also, why are you complaining to S&S about MF being bad? They are here because MF is bad, and it's not fair to expect to penalise them for MF's problems.

[Rabid]

Will it be possible to not take either transfer option and save RGG some money?
As I have had the sets for years I would be happy to pay again.

Oh dude it's fine, we don't need the money. We are getting paid less, not paying; it amounts to the same thing but feels better.

It's just a fact to trot out when someone is all, why didn't we get more. Arguably we started negotiations in a poor position, due to not knowing the full details of what was going on at MF. If we had it to do again we might do better. But it's all for a good cause. I'm not complaining, at least not if things work out with ShuffleiT; I am just explaining how we ended up not giving existing customers more.

Ah, cool. Thanks for the clarification.
In that case I can take the offline sets. (That I wouldn't have paid for).
Then starting paying Shuffle IT from Jan 2017.

[mbachtold]

I play Hearthstone and actually after knowing this would happen with Dominion, I checked their ToS before buying something, and they have nothing that allows them to delete your items "at their sole discretion".

Section 9. B. of Blizzard's battle.net EULA, which covers Hearthstone:
"Alterations to Battle.net and the Games.
Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of Battle.net, Battle.net Client, Accounts or the Games at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may also impose limits on certain features or restrict your access to parts or all of Battle.net, Battle.net Client, Accounts or the Games without notice or liability."

Blizzard can decide to turn off the Hearthstone servers tomorrow, and none of their customers are entitled to any compensation for that.

[Max]

Please, stop with these legal arguments. There's no point, because the clause means nothing until it's used, and only then can it be said to be fair or unfair.

The rights are reserved for the case of losing money from a product or service and no longer wanting to offer it, or being no longer legally capable. If a company used it to turn off a profitable service, their customers would have a reasonable case against the company, since the clause means nothing once it's applied unfairly. These clauses exist so that the firm can pull the plug on unprofitable services.

The legal case that would surround an unprofitable company turning off a product is zero - unless they've made false presentation when selling a product. Namely, they knew they were going to cease the product and didn't inform customers a reasonable time after they knew. (Say they knew in January their product would cease in June, but didn't tell people until May).

The legal case against a company which is making money from a product that ceases a product would vary on the why. If they're receiving expensive legal action against them for copyright, that'd be acceptable. If their contract is up, it becomes about false presentation. If they've shut it down for no reason, they'd have to demonstrate that it's reasonable to have shut it down over keep the servers running and mothballing the staffing of the product (maybe by removing moderated features, and having a disclaimer that the product was no longer being maintained) - and, again they have to demonstrate they let customers know a reasonable time after they did.

Contract law has rules of fair play. I am 90% certain the above holds for English law, it's been a while since I've touched this kind of law, though. What someone does has to be reasonable, and on a whim ending of services isn't reasonable.

If you want an example of how a real world terminating of services might look, basically look at what happened when gamespy shut down.

And the only thing that MF has possibly done is in their selling of the product, but even then I don't feel that they've made false presentation about it.

[Max]

Tl;dr: What MF did was overcharge for a service that might only last a year. Not illegal.

[arcee]

Will the $2 or $3 / month actually be that, or will it be $24 or $36 / year?  I could see myself paying for the occasional month but there are too many other great games to be committed to a contract.

[SCSN]

It's actually 36k/millennium, which is a terrific deal if you take inflation into account. But those reluctant to take advantage of this great opportunity can just pay for whatever month they want to pay.

[Witherweaver]

It's actually 36k/millennium, which is a terrific deal if you take inflation into account. But those reluctant to take advantage of this great opportunity can just pay for whatever month they want to pay.

Your current model is obviously biased towards faster playing users, as they can play more games within a given month.  There should be an alternative pay-per-game model to accommodate slower-playing users.

[Seprix]

#SlowPlayDominionGate

[ackmondual]

It's actually 36k/millennium, which is a terrific deal if you take inflation into account. But those reluctant to take advantage of this great opportunity can just pay for whatever month they want to pay.

Your current model is obviously biased towards faster playing users, as they can play more games within a given month.  There should be an alternative pay-per-game model to accommodate slower-playing users.

The solution to that of course would be to play longer and fewer games that'll derive you more enjoyment.

[Beyond Awesome]

It's actually 36k/millennium, which is a terrific deal if you take inflation into account. But those reluctant to take advantage of this great opportunity can just pay for whatever month they want to pay.

Your current model is obviously biased towards faster playing users, as they can play more games within a given month.  There should be an alternative pay-per-game model to accommodate slower-playing users.

Maybe $1 for Unlimited play for 24 hours.

Also, maybe new users get 1-month free access to all expansions so they can experience them first. Most subscription services offer a 30-day free-trial. Regardless, though, I think Base Set should remain free no matter what.

[popsofctown]

I want Hinterlands to be the free no matter what set.  If only for the hipster factor.

[Beyond Awesome]

I want Hinterlands to be the free no matter what set.  If only for the hipster factor.

??

[Seprix]

I want Hinterlands to be the free no matter what set.  If only for the hipster factor.

What makes Hinterlands more of a hipster set than any other Dominion set? Base set is the OG, so that's got the retro thing going on. Intrigue is the interesting pick that can be played besides the Base set to be edgy and different, so there's that too. But why Hinterlands?

[Marcory]

I want Hinterlands to be the free no matter what set.  If only for the hipster factor.

What makes Hinterlands more of a hipster set than any other Dominion set? Base set is the OG, so that's got the retro thing going on. Intrigue is the interesting pick that can be played besides the Base set to be edgy and different, so there's that too. But why Hinterlands?

If you get Hinterlands for free when you sign up, that would give Hinterlands an on-gain bonus. Is that it?

[yuma]

I want Hinterlands to be the free no matter what set.  If only for the hipster factor.

Got to be the number of beards/mustaches in the set.

By my count: Develop, Scheme, JoaT, Nomad Camp, Silk Road, Spice Merchant, Cartographer, Embassy, Haggler, Margrave, Stables (11).

Other sets:
Base: Woodcutter, Bureaucrat, Feast, Militia, Smithy, Market, Mine (7).
Intrigue: Pawn, Swindler, Baron, Conspirator, Mining Village, Duke, Minion, Saboteur, Tribute (9).
Seaside: Ambassador, Smugglers, Bazaar, Tactician (4).
Prosperity: Loan, Counting House, Mint, Mountebank, Rabble, Venture, Goons, Bank, King's Court (9).
Dark Ages: Beggar, Hermit, Sage, Ironmonger, Marauder, Procession, Wandering Minstrel, Band of Misfits, Bandit Camp, Graverobber, Junk Dealer, Pillage, Rogue, Madman, Mercenary, Sir Martin (16).

Well Dark Ages blew that theory out of the water. Not even going to look at the other sets...

On another note, I foresee a "Best Beard Art Bracket" being a thing in the future. 

[popsofctown]

It's a very good beginner/starter set and intro to the game, yet is less popular for that purpose than Intrigue and Base, and even less popular for that purpose than Seaside and Prosperity, oddly.  That's what I meant by hipster.

It was originally designed to be a standalone which is why it works well of course.

There are an awful lot of beards though.

[Beyond Awesome]

When I teach Dominion, the on-gain cards tend to be confusing to beginners. We're used to them, but it's a lot of extra decisions for someone new to take in.

[A Drowned Kernel]

Explaining the difference between "on-gain" and "on-buy" is also less than ideal for first time players.

[Seprix]

A gain is simply getting a card into your deck in whatever way it happens, whether Ironworks, buying a card, or even gaining a Curse from an opponent's Witch. Maybe explaining it that way would help.

[michaeljb]

A gain is simply getting a card into your deck in whatever way it happens*, whether Ironworks, buying a card, or even gaining a Curse from an opponent's Witch. Maybe explaining it that way would help.

*Except for having it passed to you by Masquerade, or exchanging a Traveller, or when you trash a Fortress and it gets returned to your hand.

[Seprix]

A gain is simply getting a card into your deck in whatever way it happens*, whether Ironworks, buying a card, or even gaining a Curse from an opponent's Witch. Maybe explaining it that way would help.

*Except for having it passed to you by Masquerade, or exchanging a Traveller, or when you trash a Fortress and it gets returned to your hand.

Okay, getting a new card into your deck then. Travellers are simply the same card evolving in a real sense, and Masquerade is passing old cards. Fortress is already in your deck.