FYI Announced mods from indie placement do not stack

[crime cow]

The bottom line is you can listen to the experts here all you'd like, but the simple fact of the matter is there are consumer protections in place for situations like this one. It doesn't matter what anyone types in bold print. If you thing you have been wronged go to apple or google for a refund. If they refund your money, then that's enough to show you were right. If they don't, then you're basically out of luck because it would be too expensive to litigate unless your a class action attorney...

[Dipstik]

If they refund your money, then that's enough to show you were right.

You really believe this?

[TMI]

Ok, not a "contract". Let's call it an agreement.

It's funny cuz this agreement (TOS) states that one of the parties (GREE) can break agreements that are made in the game (pop ups, or advertising ingame that ask for a trade for virtual goods for your virtual currency).

LOL

[t12pm]

LOL

But please, can someone show where my logic breaks down?

To be specific, I'm speaking of the contract that was for the exchange of x gold for item y.

Thanks

Edit: I re-read and saw Virtual Goods can be deleted as well. GREE is lookin' good (in the USA).
In my analogy, I tell the shoemaker I'll give him 1 goat, and he'll say that he may or may not give me a real leather shoe. And I still agree to the exchange of goods.

The logic breaks down at common sense, as this has been happening for a long time since the second executive coupe or maybe earlier, so if you go now and spend a ton of money for the same prize and mod what would make you think it is going to stack? Common sense says no so we spend then come here and cry the blues because it don't stack which should of been known as they didn't before

[Vile Lynn]

Ok, so let me get this straight.

Weasel and Dippy (and GREE) are saying that because it's "virtual currency", that somehow makes it ok to violate contract law? smh

Analogy:
I buy 3 goats for 30 USD. That transaction is complete and the property of both parties has exchanged hands (30 USD and 3 goats)

Now I make a contract with someone else, say a shoemaker. He tells me he'll give me a real leather shoe for 1 goat.

We make that transaction, and properties are exchanged under an understanding (a real leather shoe and a goat). I later found out that it wasn't real leather, was a contract not broken?

Of course it was! The shoemaker committed fraud! That's basic contract law, and is a cornerstone for a free society. Laws against fraud.

If am I wrong, then where?



Also, what if I gave the shoemaker was a chicken instead. Didn't I commit fraud in that instance?

It's not really the same thing...

GREE has authored their ToS so that no matter what they do, GREE is infallible. We agree, by playing, that whatever GREE does is OK: we have no ownership over any part of the game, regardless of how much real money one gives to GREE.*This is how they can change the game rules and dynamics whenever they want without announcing or face any retribution when they mess up.

As for your analogy, you might have thought you bought those goats for 30 USD, but you missed the ToS stating the goats are, in fact, not really goats or even your goats after paying.

Buy at your own risk.
Buyer beware.

[crime cow]

You really believe this?

You really don't believe this?

[Dipstik]

Actually, I think it's one of the funniest things I've seen here in days.

[crime cow]

Then we have both found this thread amusing...

[Captain Torgue]

Ok, so let me get this straight.

Weasel and Dippy (and GREE) are saying that because it's "virtual currency", that somehow makes it ok to violate contract law? smh

Analogy:
I buy 3 goats for 30 USD. That transaction is complete and the property of both parties has exchanged hands (30 USD and 3 goats)

Now I make a contract with someone else, say a shoemaker. He tells me he'll give me a real leather shoe for 1 goat.

We make that transaction, and properties are exchanged under an understanding (a real leather shoe and a goat). I later found out that it wasn't real leather, was a contract not broken?

Of course it was! The shoemaker committed fraud! That's basic contract law, and is a cornerstone for a free society. Laws against fraud.

If am I wrong, then where?



Also, what if I gave the shoemaker was a chicken instead. Didn't I commit fraud in that instance?

I prefer when you use asphalt in your analogy broseph.

[sister morphine]

It's not really the same thing...

GREE has authored their ToS so that no matter what they do, GREE is infallible. We agree, by playing, that whatever GREE does is OK: we have no ownership over any part of the game, regardless of how much real money one gives to GREE.*This is how they can change the game rules and dynamics whenever they want without announcing or face any retribution when they mess up.

As for your analogy, you might have thought you bought those goats for 30 USD, but you missed the ToS stating the goats are, in fact, not really goats or even your goats after paying.

Buy at your own risk.
Buyer beware.

It's like anything to do with computing - you purchase a program, but all you own is a license to use it. The company is under no obligation to make it possible for you to do so. They could change their OS the next day rendering your program incompatible. Buyer beware indeed!

[DeepSea]

Its also a good thing so that high stats players can slow down in their stats and giving low stats players a chance to catch up.

[HavingFun]

Where in the hell can you buy 3 goats for thirty dollars? That's cheap!!

[Evan1000]

I have two of the same prize for individual placement in war.. and both mods stack up and work fine for me- The Hook's Sniper.

[Vile Lynn]

Hacker!

You know.... GREE is in your hood right now removing one.

[TMI]

those stack cuz they're not 10%.
Apparently it's only the items with mods over 10% that don't stack. or something like that.