Cooling off period! It's 30 days not 3 years![]()
You may want to look up the UK version of that.
Cooling off period! It's 30 days not 3 years![]()
Yes they do...it's called the 'cooling off' period.
I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.
You have very different understanding than me what insult really means.
I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.
I probably wouldn't. Not worth it, but on the other hand, I didn't (luckily) invest that much in ED. And I never cared about PP that much after I've saw that its very static and simplistic, ground some modules out (mainly just wait) and that's it.I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.
In UK normally you entitled to instantly get out of service contract if they change conditions significantly, regardless of initial cooling down period (without reprecussions and only owing for amount of services you've received according to *original* stipulations).You may want to look up the UK version of that.![]()
Now - what is ED? On the other hand paying model kind of like one-off purchase. On the other hand, its kind of functions like a service subscription.
I distinctly remember when Apple last tried to cripple their phones just because "its our phone and we can push whatever updates we want" (actually, twice, first slowing them down and second trying to cripple third-party screens).It's a product, not a contract. You have no more chance of getting money back than you do from Apple on a five-year old phone that's now obsolete.
In UK normally you entitled to instantly get out of service contract if they change conditions significantly, regardless of initial cooling down period (without reprecussions and only owing for amount of services you've received according to *original* stipulations).
There is limited period to return physical/one-off purchases, but also you don't expect these purchases be mutable and subject to manufacturer significantly altering them long after you've bought them (and your initial return window expired).
Now - what is ED? On the other hand paying model kind of like one-off purchase. On the other hand, its kind of functions like a service subscription.
I think it would be mostly how vendor advertised it (based on which people would've made purchasing decisions).I wonder...as a legal point of view...if there is any legs in premise, that if you have predominantly spent most of your time in Solo, you treat the game as a direct relationship with the supplier? If you spend all your time in Open, you automatically subscribe to the subscription model?
You know they kind of "offered" KS refund. Very quietly - so people mainly had to rely on word of mouth that, yeah, if you asked for refund they just give it to you. But they certainly didn't advertise it on a front pageI know they would never offer it but IF they did I would ask for a refund. Just to many choices they have been making has really turned me off of the game which is a shame I really love space sims.
I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.
I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.
I think it would be mostly how vendor advertised it (based on which people would've made purchasing decisions).
Its not free, its part of initial game package - you pay in advance, then you get certain amount of stuff over couple of years. You know, season pass model (be damned).Not quite sure how you can get a refund from an free update to the game?
I wonder...as a legal point of view...if there is any legs in premise, that if you have predominantly spent most of your time in Solo, you treat the game as a direct relationship with the supplier? If you spend most of your time in Open, you automatically subscribe to the subscription model?