You have some fundamental misunderstandings of “scam” and “robbery”. Your example of the apples and oranges essentially illustrates that. Sorry Tutancadead, but no matter how bad Bliz did things, no matter your opinion on it all was planne or how it unfolded, there was never a scam or robbery if money was voluntarily retuned to those that felt slighted.
I get it. Bliz botched WC3R. I’m right there with you and everyone who thinks so. But that sentiment doesn’t intrinsically make what happened/what’s going on a scam.
I think the problem is the language more.
I am not saying that Reforged Now is a Scam.
I say that when they took him out they tried to make a scam. They failed because people were reacting and decided to return the money.
And whether or not it is a scam at this point they deserve to be treated the same.
Failing to deliver on promises is not immediately a scam.
The first batch of Tesla vehicles were full of problems, and they still put em out on market. That doesn’t constitute it as being a scam at the time, and does not subject the product now to be treated the same even if the latest cars pushed out do not have highest standard of quality control (due to high volume of demand).
No. But imagine if the Tesla cars come out without basic things like wheels or brakes and that apart it is evident that they cut them to “save expenses” and not because of a real problem.
They don’t need to hire anybody. They just need to revert everything they did with reforged and let the game be as it is.
They literally have to do NOTHING for the game to work flawlessly. Reforged has caused nothing but problems, that some poor CMs who soak up rage are not going to solve.
Actually, you’re wrong. Let’s look at this systematically:
What is the definition of a scam?
A. Fraud, source: xhttps://www.google.com/search?q=define+scam&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS905US905&oq=define+scam&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0i457j0l5j0i10.1831j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
What is fraud?
A. a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. Source: xhttps://www.google.com/search?ei=o9mtX7mJJ_jC0PEPt5KgkAw&q=define+fraud&oq=define+fraud&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIFCAAQyQMyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADIECAAQCjICCAAyAggAMgIIADoECAAQRzoICAAQsQMQyQM6BQgAELEDUOoaWLAhYMEiaABwA3gAgAG0A4gBuQaSAQczLjEuNC0xmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpesgBCMABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj55qTxp_7sAhV4ITQIHTcJCMIQ4dUDCA0&uact=5
What was falsely claimed or deceiving?
a. ranked system
b. Being able to use different heroes in melee (e.g. paladin skins, dreadlord skins, etc.)
c. The opening cinematic wasn’t even in the game. Like literally, they removed it. Now, you can justify that I guess, but at the end of the day, what Blizzard did was pretty damn sketchy and deceptive.
You could also justify that the above is not a scam because it will eventually be put in the game (except c), but here’s the flaw: how long do the developers have to put the above in the game before it is considered a scam? 1 year (it’s already been that)? 2 years? Where do you draw the line because IT’S LOOKING PRETTY BAD RIGHT NOW MAN.
Also, I very much doubt Blizzard offered refunds off the good of their heart. If you think as much, you’re delusional. They did it to avoid being sued.
Maybe someday I will buy reforged again. IF IT EVER BECOMES ANYTHING MORE THAN A SCAM. But for now, I’m glad I refunded when I did.
I never made any claim that is was out of the goodness of their heart.
As for the definition cherry picking, I can search around for anything that fits my argument as well.
Scam - a dishonest scheme; a fraud. - Google result
Fraud - In law fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain - Wikipedia
What is a scam? - Scams can come in many forms, but all are designed to get hold of your money - https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk
In your definition cherry picking, you left out one of the key factors: taking money.
How do you even cherry-pick a definition? A word means what it is defined as. There’s no cherry picking there. Just because you don’t like that the English definition of a scam shows that W3 reforged is a scam doesn’t mean you can throw it out and call it cherry picking. And it IS a scam. Tons of money was made.
I’m surprised you’re asking that, DesignDragon, especially because you gave an example of it right in your reply.
You know full well that many words have more than one definition/meaning. Of those that have one meaning, definitions can be worded differently. And, right in your reply: “Just because you don’t like that the English definition” demonstrates that you understand words can have more than one definition/definitions can have more than one wording. Of course it’s cherry picking. You and I both did it above. We both found definitions/wording that conveniently fit our narrative. (And what did English have to do with anything? This has all been in English.)
When a purported scammer actively offers back the property, currency, etc, those that do not take advantage do not get to sit back and keep calling it a scam.
And thus, no, DesignDragon. Those that feel they didn’t get the product they were expecting could and still can have their money back.
And finally, your reply about cherry picking doesn’t seem to relate to what you quoted. Was there something about that quote you wanted to address?
As Leviathan said, unless you pick the definition of Scam in the constitution of the country you have bought Reforged from and prove it in a trial, you can actually cherry pick whatever you want.
On the other hand, let’s remember that the massive refund has only been available after a massive complaint by the community.
Because, originally, according to the awful low quality of what has been delivered and the awful difficulty to have it refunded, it could have been well considered as a scam.
Let’s say:
Now we can debate about it, but, the original intention WAS a scam.
I have a hard time accepting that using a word for one of its definitions is “cherry picking.” If anything, it’s just knowing the English language and using it.
Also, offering refunds to avoid being sued doesn’t disqualify something as a scam. To commit fraud (which is the definition of scam), I simply need to claim that something I sell you has qualities it does not. If I told you and 100 people that a quarter was a silver dollar and swapped monies with them, it doesn’t matter if I give you and them your money back later. I still committed fraud (granted, on a much smaller scale).
Specifically with Reforged, this game is still doesn’t have what it offered (I’m still waiting for those multiple paladins they mentioned are useable in ranked, etc.). How much time does Blizzard have to deliver before you consider this fraud? It’s already been a year since release (so the article that advertised those things were in the game is a year old too).
The point there was that using definitions as a basis for an argument doesn’t work when you only choose the definitions that fit you position. To demonstrate that, it countered you by doing the same thing: picking definitions that fit my position. So doing so got us nowhere.
But your doing it again, so, You say scam is fraud, and I say fraud is an intentionally deceptive action designed to provide the perpetrator with an unlawful gain or to deny a right to a victim. “Unlawful” is the key. There isn’t a court that is going to hear a case on Blizzard’s WC3R when it’s discovered that the exchange is freely reversable.
I’m surprised you asked this. It’s should be clear by my stance that that it will never be while refunds are available. I suspect someday that refunds will stop for old purchases. Then it could be argued that a scam is in play. However, giving people a year to refund is certainly more than enough time for anyone to decide if they were mislead. Any that that don’t refund in that huge timeframe, I’d say that’s on them, not Bliz.
Yes, a word can have multiple meanings. When you use a word to describe something, having one definition not fit does not mean the word cannot be used to describe something.
For example, the word cat can mean the furry animal we typically know but can also refer to a man. So since a furry animal doesn’t meet the second definition, does that mean the furry animal isn’t a cat? Lol, no. If one definition fits, the word works. It’s that simple.
Hence, WC3 Reforged=fraud.
The only valid argument you have would be that Blizzard plans to implement the missing features eventually. However, time should be a factor in that. How long until WC3 Reforged is considered a scam? That is up for debate.
Also, just as an FYI, money has a time component to its value as well. Money now is more valuable than money 5 months from now (or a year from now similar to those who preordered lol). Blizz basically scammed people into a free year long loan.
We’ll from a legal perspective, as in what crime fits. It would be defined as theft/ burglary without any physical action, wich is not needed.
As for the conspiracy , that would be the DRM part (the online verification system) wich they tryied force upon us.
Let’s say you buy a DVD, you have it for 15 years but one day when you play it on your PC it get’s updated, features, content and menu has been changed/removed.
That is not legal nor ethical.
Here is a other eg.
You buy a pair of shoes, after a decade the company whom you bought them from is entering your house (If the door is locked or not it does’t mater) takes your shoes and replaces them with a other pair of shoes that does’t look or have the same features as your old onces.
Looks and features does’t realy mater (alltrough it’s the reason).
The fact that your shoes was taken from you is all that’s needed for the crime.
I have a draft for a lawsuit, but these things takes time… but am sure it will be faster then geting all features back (bots)
Problem is: you never owned the shoes servers and you still have the possibility to use your old shoes. From the beginning you knew that the server could have been shut down anytime. It’s a service, not a product and it’s written in the eula.
That said, we can go back to the deceptive way in which they have tried to sell you a product that was no “better” in any aspect than the previous one as widely advertised.
The fact that the product itself missed most of the features as advertised.
The fact that the a bloatware was imposed WITHOUT choice on the owners of the original product.
The fact that the product had (and still has) more bugs than features.
The fact that many refunds were blocked in the beginning.
And so on…
What Blizzard took away is not a product, it’s the joy to play this game…
Yeah, as much as I would like to agree with the whole shoe analogy, it just doesn’t work because games aren’t a physical product and the way they are covered legally is a very flimsy line between product and service.
I mean you could even argue that a game getting a patch is ‘unethical’ because you paid for a product that you do not expect to be modified whatsoever. You could argue that the company nerfed your favourite race and made it unplayable for you and how you deem that to be unethical if you really wanted to. It wouldn’t really hold water, but you could absolutely make an argument out of it and draft up a lawsuit too.
I mean look at the whole US election lawsuits; the majority of the lawsuits that were issued out had zero evidence to base their claim. Just because we can make a lawsuit out of it doesn’t really mean anything.