Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

sfhand

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,008

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by sfhand

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, Snake726 said:

    Tell me - did you receive a "prompt" message from Battlefront once the "time" of the "end of September" had passed?

    Do you think that, based upon your reading of the sales policy, you could have gotten a refund?

    This is really a pedantic activity, since I do not intend to cancel my order, but surely you'll submit that - failing some further reading comprehension issue - the fact of the matter is that Battlefront does not comply with U.S. federal law in this case and, by the grace of their consumers who gladly pay above-market prices for their products, nobody cares to give them trouble.

    The end of September was not the promised release date.

    0

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    Just now, Snake726 said:

    There was no promised time, and BF explicitly states that they do not accept refunds.

    It's on the page you didn't read:

    NO REFUND POLICY
    Battlefront.com does not offer refunds for products purchased.

    There was a promised time it's on the page you claim I didn't read... you're killing me. The no refund policy is not a matter of the FTC law you cite since the promised time hasn't been exceeded. It would fall under the jurisdiction of state law as the link I provided earlier clarified. I did look at the Europe link, not a court ruling, just some grousing.

    0

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, Snake726 said:

    You quoted the wrong material.

    Here's the same website you Googled advising as per the prompt delivery regulation. Nice try though bucko.

    https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-operations/laws-governing-shipping-advertising.html

    "The FTC has wide ranging powers to enforce the 30-Day Rule. Businesses can be sued by the FTC for injunctive relief, damages of up to $16,000 per violation, and redress for the consumer. Additionally, state and local agencies can sue you for violating consumer protection laws."

    "The 30-Day Rule focuses solely on the method of ordering. It doesn't matter how the product is advertised or who initiates the sale. If a customer orders by any of the above methods, the shipment is covered by the Rule."

    Thanks for the link, here's the relevant part:

    If the business is unable to ship within the promised time or within 30 days, the merchant must promptly tell the customer by mail, telephone or email, and give a new shipping estimate and give the customer a chance to cancel their order and receive a full refund. 

    The promised time was on the sales page and is in the sales policy. BF is still able to ship within the promised time. Game. Set. Match. Europe is of no concern to me.

    0

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    Just now, Snake726 said:

    So, yes then.

    Ad hominem - in this case the "abusive" ad hominem - is only a valid informal fallacy should an attack on character have nothing to do with the argument. However, in this case, your understanding of the relationship between federal law and the concept of legal precedent is incorrect. Since you don't acknowledge that you are incorrect in believing that a legal battle be necessary to ascertain whether or not federal law applies here, I can only assume:

    a) You are incapable of understanding

    b) You are intentionally acting as if you misunderstand to create an argument

    If you are truly a) and not b), you can learn more about how you're more recently wrong by reading this book: http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Ad-Hominem-Arguments,933.aspx

    Keep digging...

    0

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by sfhand
    clarity

    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

    0

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    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.

    0

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    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.

    0

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by sfhand

    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.

    0

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    13 hours ago, Mord said:

    Well, if you guys want to keep arguing the minutiae of BFC's pre-orders that's your business but it's beyond ridiculous at this point. Steve should've locked the thread after he said there'd be an update. Now, it's just devolved into a $#@% measuring contest.

     

    Mord.

    Hey, I understand where you're coming from. I don't have anything invested in this, Hell, at this point I think anyone who thinks they've been wronged should go ahead and lawyer up and sue BF (i.e., put their money where their mouth is). In a thread like this I think posting the sales terms of a pre-order is helpful more than divisive. I was seriously surprised that some couldn't accept it for what it  is. Peace out!

    1

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    More from the "Sales Policy page":

    "ORDERS WITH OUT OF STOCK OR PRE-ORDER ITEMS

    If your order contains any out of stock, backordered or Pre-order items your order will NOT ship until all ordered items are back in stock. We do not ship out partial orders.

    Our online ordering system is setup to bill you at the time of purchase not the time of shipment. That means that as soon as you click the "Submit Order" button your credit card will be billed.

    If your order contains backordered or out of stock items you will be billed the full amount before the order ships. If you do not wish to be billed in that way, then please do not place an order with any out of stock or backordered items."

    Pre-ordered items are "out of stock" items by definition about which BF clearly states if you don't want to be billed in advance on out of stock items don't order them.

    Let's look at this rationally... BF has a Sales Policy page and they have a product page that parrots the key bits of information about when to expect a pre-ordered product (when it is in stock). The product page also says the game will ship when it's ready(it is not in stock until a release candidate has gone gold). I do not perceive this as marketing, I believe this information is included in the sales page so that prospective buyers won't have to read the "Sales Policy" page to understand the pre-ordered item will not ship until it's ready. The unscrupulous thing to do would be to not mention it at all on the product page and fall back on a "Well it is clearly spelled out in our Sales Policy" rationale as an answer to complaints about taking money from customers and not delivering product. Clearly BF has not acted in bad faith toward their customers, but have tried to ensure complete transparency regarding the parameters of the purchase. That's not just marketing, that's also being honest about the parameters of the purchase.

    2

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by sfhand
    clarity

    21 hours ago, Snake726 said:

    Sure thing - perhaps you'd find it upsetting to be proven wrong, but I don't really care - actually, no, I might enjoy it!

    Here is Battlefront's "sales policy" which is their TOS; you'll notice there are no clauses pertaining to anything to do with pre-orders except for refunds.

    The text on their front page would be considered marketing material, not a legal disclaimer...

    So, I went to their "sales policy", thanks for the link, and it says the following about pre-orders:

    "Backordered and Pre-Order items are shipped out when they become available."

    So your description of their sales policy is grossly inaccurate.

    When I wrote "Please do explain..." I was hoping you would do a little better than this.

    2nd edit: Also, their "sales policy" aligns with what you claim are marketing materials. I'm no legal expert, but I would not be surprised if you were wrong that their product page would be considered merely marketing when it spells out the when the product will be released.

    0

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by sfhand
    clarity

    3 hours ago, ZackTactical34 said:

    I somewhat disagree. While I do believe that PR should never respond to every little complaint (it would take a lifetime), I think a general update would do them well. And, while some would definitely be annoyed with the delay, I would think that most reasonable people would understand the process and accept it. BF's ultimate goal shouldn't be about ending these silly arguments. Rather, their focus should be on heightening the quality of their brand image and their communication with the consumer.

    Great post. My own position concerning not just this release, but every release since Combat Mission: Shock Force, is that I would love more information about the development of product and patches, whether it be roadmap posts or release updates. That doesn't mean I feel entitled to them however. This is the first BF developed CM title since CMSF I haven't preordered.

    Going by your join date I am going to assume you didn't experience the CMSF release and all the complaints that went with it - what's going on in this thread doesn't even move the needle in comparison. I personally found the game as released to be far below what I expected. To the point of not playing it at all for quite a long time. With every patch I would give it another try. It took several patches for me to find it worthy of my time. Throughout, having fallen in love with CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK, I was willing to wait for them to get it right, eventually they essentially did (to the degree the limitations of  the engine would allow).

    The fact that they are "porting" the CMSF to v4 and are giving a deal to those who already own CMSF illustrates to me their value of their customers far more than stopping into the forums during crunch time does or would. Long ago Steve, who is quite verbose and active on the forum when not in a deadline induced foxhole, promised CMSF customers would be rewarded for their endurance and loyalty (my words not his).

    I have come to know and appreciate when it's done is the release date of BF products. I have come to expect a lack of communication from BF when it's foxhole time and I am okay with it because I think I understand why. My respect for BF and the Betas for their continued dedication to making the best possible game they can make has and continues to deepen over the years. I have had the pleasure of getting to know a few Betas and I am constantly amazed at the time they donate to this game and to interacting with and helping others on the forums. When I was asked by a Beta if I was interested in being a Beta I said no because I knew/know I could never measure up to the standard they've set.

    4

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    5 hours ago, slippy said:

    maybe i worded it wrong. what i was meaning to say was this.

    BF are hard at work, i assume, trying to complete the game, in order that it may become available for them to sell to us for profit.

    Whilst carrying out that work, you notice that there are disgruntled posts on the forum about finnish dates, lack of communication etc.

    do you :-

    a) take 5 minutes out of your work to post a reassuring explanation, keep your customers happy and onside, and get back to work?

    or

    b) completely ignore any posts and let  customers argue back and fore against or in support of BF?

     

    both options could, i have no basis on that your correct, affect sales and your business PR. Option a) can surely only have a positive outcome, whilst that of b) is negative.

    Is it worth 5 minutes of time to give your business a positive boost? I would say yes.

     

    p.s i took 5 mins out of my day to post this

     

    I understand your points and don't really take any issue with them. I would put forward the possibility that Steve isn't visiting the forum and therefore isn't aware of any complaints. I don't think it is unrealistic that Steve, whose product has missed a couple of projected shipping windows, is probably frustrated,head down, mired in a swamp, trying to get the game out the door. Under those circumstances I don't blame him for not explaining to people who preordered that the game will ship when it's ready and (thankfully, given the time patches take) not before. To keep beating the dead horse bears repeating, when one preorders it is spelled out that the game isn't done and will not ship until it's ready.

    So far, at least two projected release windows have been missed (my recollection, I could be wrong about this). Why anyone would want another is beyond me... I mean really, what do you tell a guy with two black eyes? Nothing he hasn't heard twice before...

    0

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by sfhand
    typo

    3 hours ago, Snake726 said:

    That's because it isn't a sales agreement. You could say "disclaimer: you will not receive a product after payment", but such a thing would not be a sales agreement.

    The fact is that you paid. The product is then supposed to be delivered by some date. Yes, indeed - that date can be whatever you desire: 10 years if you like.

    But if you start to moan about people saying "I paid X months ago, when is it coming out", then perhaps you are misunderstanding the point of contention: once you take payment for a product, you have agreed to deliver it: and CERTAINLY customers will now inquire at a MUCH higher rate than if they had not paid in advance.

    I don't hear BF moaning about anything... The answer to when it's coming out is when it's ready. On the store page it clearly says the product is not finished and won't ship until  it is finished. If you preorder under those circumstances you aren't entitled to anything except the product when it's finished. If you don't like those clearly published terms don't preorder... 

    1

    They meant september of next year!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    53 minutes ago, slippy said:

    I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat argument.

    Maybe i am missing something obvious, if so excuse me, but i can see no mention of a release date on the store page

    re-read my post a few times, and i still can't see where i said that either.

     

    My gripe is simply down to what i believe is piss poor customer communication for a $120.00 (discounted mind!) full game. No other issues

    Hey, I'm with you about tit-for-tat arguments. The store page says it will ship when it is ready. That is the release date. That is always BF's release date (with one questionable exception in the view of many).

     My query about whether you will continue as a customer was asked because you wrote that BF could improve sales numbers by posting monthly status reports. It was the wrong question to ask though, I should have asked if you are going to start buying extra copies of games if BF starts releasing a monthly status report. Other than that I see no factual basis for your claim of improving sales.

    It's all in good fun bro... enjoy your evening.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...