Jump to content
tavichh

They meant september of next year!

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Snake726 said:

Just imagine how ridiculous this is - I sell games to people for a living, and I have to lecture some people on protecting their rights as consumers. Your willingness to get fleeced so you don't upset the person selling to you is obscene; when the marketing team try to tell me how effective they are I usually don't take them so seriously, but hey, these people really exist eh. You learn something new every day.

Fleeced? CMSF2 is hardly a Ponzi scheme or similar take the money and run operation, nor is it in the league of Vapourware kickstarters. The product is near completion and has hit a speed bump and is delayed. Their communication is not the best, granted, but they've not run off anywhere with anyone's millions. You seem to be over-reacting. If you're that upset about pre-ordering for a product that's missed it's release date then simply cancel the order and get a chargeback on  your card or a refund from Paypal. It's not that hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snake726 said:

You seem to have missed that you are incorrect - those "sales terms" are legally considered marketing text: I posted the sales terms, and pointed out how they do not agree with your interpretation that we just have to deal with it. Customers are legally capable of obtaining a refund and, likely, the FCC implemented this law to prevent situations where a company takes your money and says "It will be delivered whenever". If you are so whipped that this kind of customer protection upsets you, and makes you worried for the developer, then I suppose you can dispute that with your federal government.

It seems that it is so difficult for some people here to register that others have a right to have a different opinion so long as it is justified, and so you continue to argue in order to silence people - unfortunately, you are arguing rather poorly.

You posted a link to the Sales Policy, I thanked you for doing so and I pointed out that you missed the pertinent parts. Did you not see the post with a direct quote of the Sales policy? Your assessment of the Sales Policy is incomplete and incorrect, I posted the parts you overlooked - parts that undercut your entire argument.

 

edit: Correcting your faulty assertion is not trying to silence you.

Edited by sfhand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snake726 said:

Just imagine how ridiculous this is - 

I don't have to imagine, I'm reading it pretty close to real time.  What exactly do you think you are protecting us from? Most of the folks on here are pretty familiar with Steve and BF and whatever frustrations folks may have about the communications level from BF, I don't think anyone doubts they will deliver on the product. I appreciate you protecting our consumer rights, but I only want one thing - the completed CMSF2 in my greedy little paws and I don't believe you can help with that.  But thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, sburke said:

I don't have to imagine, I'm reading it pretty close to real time.  What exactly do you think you are protecting us from? Most of the folks on here are pretty familiar with Steve and BF and whatever frustrations folks may have about the communications level from BF, I don't think anyone doubts they will deliver on the product. I appreciate you protecting our consumer rights, but I only want one thing - the completed CMSF2 in my greedy little paws and I don't believe you can help with that.  But thanks

I'm not supposing anything, I'm responding to people in this thread. I've already read Steve's note, and that's great - at this point I'm arguing with people who wish to continue arguing to defend what they imagine is being attacked by a reasonable request that was already met.

I suppose the point got lost in the weeds - a couple guys said, in effect "Take a look at the text written on the site, you signed a contract", and I pointed out that they were wrong, and why - along the way there has been a bit of whining, a bit of complaining, and essentially several requests to "show me why I am wrong" - and so I will continue to oblige so long as they continue to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harry Speakup said:

Fleeced? CMSF2 is hardly a Ponzi scheme or similar take the money and run operation, nor is it in the league of Vapourware kickstarters. The product is near completion and has hit a speed bump and is delayed. Their communication is not the best, granted, but they've not run off anywhere with anyone's millions. You seem to be over-reacting. If you're that upset about pre-ordering for a product that's missed it's release date then simply cancel the order and get a chargeback on  your card or a refund from Paypal. It's not that hard.

Show me where I claimed such a thing. Thanks.

Perhaps you are confused, given that the FCC ruling is designed to prevent customers from being "fleeced", and you are conflating my statement of that fact with my making some kind of accusation that I am being scammed.

I am merely pointing out that I would love to sell a product to the lovely people on this forum - I would make a lot of money, and receive few complaints- and if I'm lucky, some people would even give up some rights that they don't need to give up just to show how much they love me.

P.S. I've been playing Combat Mission for about 5 years; please don't suppose because I am critical of bull**** that I am somehow criminalizing Battlefront.

Edited by Snake726

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sfhand said:

And the terms were plainly posted on the product page and in the Sales Policy.

And I have pointed out that the product page is marketing text and the terms of the sales policy are illegal.

I have not claimed that I wish to get a refund, or sue Steve, but if you wish to insist that you are correct, I will continue to ask you to mail your Congressman if you disagree with the FCC ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right - unless you allow someone who is incorrect to presume they are correct, you are caught in a continuous loop of nonsense.

The proper way to speak and think is not to, so as to not upset people who dislike talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how Patton dealt with his problems after all - when the Germans fought back at Arrarcourt, he famously said "Hey, whatever, this is all ridiculous - let's go home!"

Post another video to show me the high road, why don't ya?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And hey - you know what - it turned out that making a post to say "Hey, we're still working" didn't eat up Steve's whole week after all - maybe we can give it a rest now, he did the thing, the people wondering what the hell was going on have gotten some communication, and all that's left is people complaining that people are talking in the goddamn forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Snake726 said:

I am merely pointing out that I would love to sell a product to the lovely people on this forum - I would make a lot of money, and receive few complaints- and if I'm lucky, some people would even give up some rights that they don't need to give up just to show how much they love me.

Umm yeah sure if you consistently produced a stellar product over 20 years, proved that you stood by your product etc.  What you seem to be insinuating is that somehow those years and years of experience don't play a role here, like we are all some schmucks.  Gee thanks. 

  I am still really unclear what you are arguing for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sburke said:

Umm yeah sure if you consistently produced a stellar product over 20 years, proved that you stood by your product etc.  What you seem to be insinuating is that somehow those years and years of experience don't play a role here, like we are all some schmucks.  Gee thanks. 

  I am still really unclear what you are arguing for.

I like the games. I really do. Stellar is not correct. That's just a matter of money and development polish - that's nobody's fault. But out of the hundreds of game developers I know, only one of them had played the first Combat mission upon its initial release, and had forgotten the name. I've worked on Company of Heroes, and have evangelized Combat Mission to some of those developers - maybe they'll even take a chance and play it someday, adding to the perhaps hundreds of Combat Mission players in the world.

Do you object to any of the standards suggested for Battlefront, the same communication standards that absolutely all of their competitors make an effort to effect? If your own standards are that low, you are welcome to it - why does it disturb you so that others have higher standards? Why is it further more confusing that one could challenge someone's business practices while enjoying their product and their work, while, at the same time, not being delusional about its success and status within the gaming market as a whole?

Are you looking for me to agree with you, that Battlefront should not bother improving their communications, or is it that you want me to acknowledge that you are fine with this poor level of communication? What are you looking for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snake726 said:

I don't think you understand what the sales policy is at this point.

LMFAO... you posted the link to it! I don't think you even read your own link based on your distortion of it (which is why I asked if you were going to seriously try and call someone else out for a lack of reading comprehension). I'm not going to answer your other posts (I haven't read them yet) until you deal with the contents of the Sales Policy that you linked to - line by line, if necessary - because that link discredits everything you are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sfhand said:

LMFAO... you posted the link to it! I don't think you even read your own link based on your distortion of it (which is why I asked if you were going to seriously try and call someone else out for a lack of reading comprehension). I'm not going to answer your other posts (I haven't read them yet) until you deal with the contents of the Sales Policy that you linked to - line by line, if necessary - because that link discredits everything you are saying.

Excellent argument, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sfhand said:

LMFAO... you posted the link to it! I don't think you even read your own link based on your distortion of it (which is why I asked if you were going to seriously try and call someone else out for a lack of reading comprehension). I'm not going to answer your other posts (I haven't read them yet) until you deal with the contents of the Sales Policy that you linked to - line by line, if necessary - because that link discredits everything you are saying.

Perhaps what you are finding difficult to understand is the conflict between what Battlefront writes on its websites, and the laws of the United States of America.

Do you understand that Battlefront's "no refund" policy conflicts with the FCC regulation quoted? Do you understand that federal law takes precedence over what Steve writes on his website? Do you understand that the FCC regulation stipulates that the sell inform the buyer of the status of the ordered product post-transaction? Your opinion about this doesn't matter, take it up with the FCC.

Do you understand that, further, my showing you this does not mean that I intend to sue Steve?

Is that easy enough for you now?

Edited by Snake726

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Snake726 said:

Perhaps what you are finding difficult to understand is the conflict between what Battlefront writes on its websites, and the laws of the United States of America.

Do you understand that Battlefront's "no refund" policy conflicts with the FCC regulation quoted? Do you understand that federal law takes precedence over what Steve writes on his website?

Do you understand that, further, my showing you this does not mean that I intend to sue Steve?

Is that easy enough for you now?

And now perhaps you can understand my comment about lawyering up? Because until it is settled in court it is a pointless argument. If you really think you're right sue them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sfhand said:

And now perhaps you can understand my comment about lawyering up? Because until it is settled in court it is a pointless argument. If you really think you're right sue them.

Are you...stupid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Snake726 said:

Are you...stupid?

Returns and Refunds: Federal Law

While state laws primarily govern the issue of returned merchandise, there's no federal law that requires a merchant to refund money. Per most state laws, refunds are subject to the established store refund policy at the time of purchase, unless the product purchased is found to be unfit for the purpose of which it was intended. A customer changing his or her mind after making a purchase, such as deciding they want a bigger television screen, is not the fault of the merchant and the merchant cannot be held responsible.

Generally speaking, most stores do offer refunds. It is usually pursuant to a store policy which explicitly that returns are extended, in order to create and keep good will in the community; but again, this is a store policy and not a federal law.

 

https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/return-policies-and-refunds.html

Edited by sfhand
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×