• Announcements

    • IMPORTANT - REACH US IN THE NEW FORUM   05/04/2017

      Ladies and gentlemen ATTENTION please:
      It's time to move into a new house!
        As previously announced, from now on IT WON'T BE POSSIBLE TO CREATE THREADS OR REPLY in the old forums. From now on the old forums will be readable only. If you need to move/copy/migrate any post/material from here, feel free to contact the staff in the new home. We’ll be waiting for you in the NEW Forums!

      https://community.blackdesertonline.com/index.php

      *New features and amazing tools are waiting for you, even more is yet to come in the future.. just like world exploration in BDO leads to new possibilities.
      So don't be afraid about changes, click the link above and follow us!
      Enjoy and see you on the other side!  
    • WICHTIG: Das Forum ist umgezogen!   05/04/2017

      Damen und Herren, wir bitten um Eure Aufmerksamkeit, es ist an der Zeit umzuziehen!
        Wie wir bereits angekündigt hatten, ist es ab sofort nicht mehr möglich, neue Diskussionen in diesem Forum zu starten. Um Euch Zeit zu geben, laufende Diskussionen abzuschließen, könnt Ihr noch für zwei Wochen in offenen Diskussionen antworten. Danach geht dieses Forum hier in den Ruhestand und das NEUE FORUM übernimmt vollständig.
      Das Forum hier bleibt allerdings erhalten und lesbar.   Neue und verbesserte Funktionen warten auf Euch im neuen Forum und wir arbeiten bereits an weiteren Erweiterungen.
      Wir sehen uns auf der anderen Seite!

      https://community.blackdesertonline.com/index.php Update:
      Wie angekündigt könen ab sofort in diesem Forum auch keine neuen Beiträge mehr veröffentlicht werden.
    • IMPORTANT: Le nouveau forum   05/04/2017

      Aventurières, aventuriers, votre attention s'il vous plaît, il est grand temps de déménager!
      Comme nous vous l'avons déjà annoncé précédemment, il n'est désormais plus possible de créer de nouveau sujet ni de répondre aux anciens sur ce bon vieux forum.
      Venez visiter le nouveau forum!
      https://community.blackdesertonline.com
      De nouvelles fonctionnalités ainsi que de nouveaux outils vous attendent dès à présent et d'autres arriveront prochainement! N'ayez pas peur du changement et rejoignez-nous! Amusez-vous bien et a bientôt dans notre nouveau chez nous

Things were better without pearl gifting

74 posts in this topic

Posted

Still there are many items that go to the bid system. Still there are ppl that dont give a dam about pearl gift. I myself sold tri kzarka staff, + 9 and tri godr dande and tri nouver dagger without any pears.

 

Besides market never were and isnt the best way or the only way of boss items aquisition. Just go play the game and it will come some day. Ppl tend to demand everything NOW. Black desert does not support such behaviour. And if you cant stand waiting for item maybe this game isnt for you.

I dont support pearl gifting, im agains it. Thats why i will simly sell my items for silver and i will never gift pearls for listing or buying items.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Umm...so don't pay? If no one pays people will list the boss items/etc anyway. Just pre-order and have patience bidding.

And if you're still trying to get a T8 you should've tried earlier. This Horse MP revamp patch was known for weeks since it hit KR. If you had camped Horse MP for a day you would 100% have a good T8 by now.

Edited by Eppo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Kakao should be sued for RNG cash shop items, they should at the very least be taxed like a casino/gambling.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have a new hobby...

Sniping the stuff I need that people are gifting pearls to get.

 

Just watch the market when you see someone in world chat chasing pearls.

 

Thanks for the Kzarka!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Meanwhile all lawsuits that I've read about where people have attempted to file on games that sell only digital currency have flopped and failed.

@Plunge - Tell this person why it's not possible to file a lawsuit against Kakao right now. You're better at this than I am.

I gave it a while to see if plunge would reply but since he isn't i'll give it a go since i am pretty versed in the subject considering my career 
in the gaming industry and what i know/have seen

TLDR GL you would never win in court. You don't own your account or your characters. Does anyone even read the EULA / TOS?
Try proving breach of contract and prove the content you never owned to begin with, that: you now own and are monetarily entitled to it .
It's sily someone even thinks they could win. 

Remember this,You have no right to your account or the money you spent on it. You do not own the account or characters.
You do not own the data that makes up those characters. You have simply agreed by logging in and pressing start that you wish
to access data you do not own . You are simply conceding  you do not own it Just by logging in.
-=) It's silly to even try to "sue" lol.

 

Long explanation below,in no particular order,in mostly chaos because i am fighting 
2 sleeping pills to stay awake lol



You don't own your game account. You aren't guaranteed to keep or even continue service of your account. The publisher may rid you of your account at
their discretion at any time for any reason they deem necessary to do so.


Also i don't think he understands how law works..Or how gray areas of the law work.
This is currently a grey area of the law. When there are grey areas of the law regarding consequence to litigation they take
generations to change and establish a precedent.

Let's say you filed a lawsuit for the 5,000 dollars you spent on the game. You would never get the full 5,000 back because you did
In fact get use out of those things you spent.. Lets say a miracle happens and you win your lawsuit for 5,000. Well
In order for that to happen with this current precedent to take place and the current laws in place you would have to first
do the following.

1. Find out the exact worth of the company you are suing
2. Plan to spend 1/40th that companies net worth in lawyer fees
3. Find a lawyer willing to sue that company.
4. Find who had the idea and "intent" of deciding to allow this practice you see as "fraudulent" or "breach of contract"
5. Realize that they will blame the developer to end this case immediately.
6. Realize the developer is in a country thats laws are so polarizingly different that you now need another Lawyer.
One that is willing in a very small country to sue for you to harm a company from their "small" country.
Very unlikely to begin with.
 

And if you get that far...
7. Because of litigation laws in america,+ the grey area of now who really "owns" the internet in the first place,What
governing control we currently "don't " have over it since we have almost "litigated" the internet as a country to others.
as you can see with what happened with (icann) + 

 

This would likely cost you anywhere between 900+ dollar$ an hour for a return of 5,000 dollars,By the time you 'won"
You would owe more than you would gain by an amount you would not believe. 

The only reason people break grey areas of law like this is to establish Precedent when a FIRM really thinks what
you can do is a slam dunk. You are there for the principle . And usually when that is done it's funded by "angel investors"
to be pro-bono or to get something off of the back end (still invested) ,So you are either rich... Or a firm thinks you have
100% chance to win. Go ask any lawyer if they would take your case involving this,they would take your money,Pretend to
find a way to help you,Show you laws to encourage you to spend more money on more time for them to help you,Untill they
Bled you dry then tell you in the end that you knew the expectations going into it then laugh you out of their office,Or
a more honest lawyer would just tell you that your wasting your time to begin with. (few lawyers turn down money,even if
they know they can't win)

And lastly to even get a lawyer convinced to try to take this case you have to convince a "contract lawyer" that you
even have a case of 'breach of contract" since that is the scope of laws this would fall under.


I want you to think of this game as your freedom of speech,You have the right to go down the street and yell the F word at
people,But that doesn't stop you from consequences,You have the right to say as you want but if you threaten someones  life you have
broken a law using that simple freedom of speech. Therefor you are subject to consequences.

 

So just to recap.

Our government is not even the majority decider of internet law now,Each country has laws on certain things on the internet.
There is no precedent to win a case of this nature. The chance of a rich person attempting this lawsuit is so small that it's
actually funny someone even think's it.Even if there was no TOS or EULA it would still be almost impossible.
And even then the best way to prove guilt is proving Intent, Which is very difficult to do with breach of contract with
very little significant sample size of establishing intent based on the publishers/developers lack of being vocal with
It's customers period.

 

Even then you are in a game that says you own nothing in it. Do people even read EULA or TOS anymore? Sure they aren't law.
But they are written by lawyers who know the law. A contract is a contract as long as it adheres to specific laws that contract law
is applied to without violating your rights as a human. Or without forcing you to do something against the law to fulfill it.
Yet you are in a game that's rules say you own nothing. And you agreed to it by logging in and launching the game.
So if you own nothing,How can you sue for control over the thing you never owned? Because in the first place you would have to
prove you own it in order to establish that something cost you anything.. Even if you bought 100$ in  pearls,and a month later
the game shuts down,They would owe you  nothing. Because you never owned any of it to begin with.

 

I am tired of people trying to  call morality law. The two are very different things and concepts entirely.

Even if you still believed there was a possibility after all of that then GL getting this stalled out in court
for three years. Because you don't have a right to a "speedy" grand trial. Because it wouldn't work in small claims court
where you have the right to a speedy trial.

Ask yourself do you have a pro bono FIRM ready to support you? Or are you rich? Do you believe in miracles?

Even if you are any of those things.. At the end of the day A korean developer still owns the rights to all data even
The publishers here have on the servers (your characters) for instance. And north american/european law have
no jurisdiction over that digital data that you never owned to begin with. Instead you are at the whim of abiding by
rules to use their data to play with each day. Emphasis on their and not yours. Digital goods are the worst cases
to try to win on the internet.

 

Edited by Freeway
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

edit: try to get a t8 horse without gifting $50 of pearls to the lucky fellow 

There is no horse trading for pearls anymore, breeders themselves not selling them cuz the new horse market is rng now unlike before so good luck even getting a t8 with gifting, ppl will wish to have gifted instead of getting a courser t8 themselves. 

Also you sound entitled to demand items just cuz u have the silver for it lol i had 4 bill in bank and i can't buy shit, i had to grind items, chase bosses and enhance myself most of it.

Edited by SillySin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i had 4 bill in bank and i can't buy shit

I have this issue as well, I have over 10 bil in bank and can't buy shit. Silver is like so useless lol good game design indeed. PPl are never gonna sell their T8 cuz like wtf is another 200 mil in ur bank of 4 bil worth when u can't even buy shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

ToS is not law. ToS is like a local rule for a casino or a night club. If someone does take it to the court that ToS ain't gonna mean jack.

 

The ToS is a legal binding contract in both the US and EU, by agreeing to it (which you did when you downloaded and started the game) you agreed to follow the rules it sets. The only time a ToS can be considered void is if it requires you to break local laws, the interpretation of which is down to the judge presiding the case. Please don't try to discuss the legality of things if you don't know what you're talking about, you're going to give people the wrong information. BDO functions under a "click wrap" agreement which means in order to download and play the game you NEED to read the ToS.

Here are the sources from a previous thread where someone tried to argue this point. 

you cant waive all of your rights.

Can Kakao make you waive your right to free speech? No. They can however make you waive you're right to a refund for their game under both EU and US law.

Kakao should be sued for RNG cash shop items, they should at the very least be taxed like a casino/gambling.

What are you going to sue them for, clearly labelling that some items are RNG and then allowing you to choose whether you want to purchase them or not? You're also not gambling with real money, you spent real money on buying Daum Cash and then converted that into pearls, pearls have no real world value and even then you're not gambling with the pearls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

From Kakaos point of view things are far more profitable with gifting so its here to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

ToS is not law. ToS is like a local rule for a casino or a night club. If someone does take it to the court that ToS ain't gonna mean jack.

 

Not at all, it will mean everything on the contrary, it's a contract.

You sign it before accessing the service, it's a component of the deal, reputed known and agreed when you give your consent (signature) and among parties, the contract is law.

Edited by Capitaine Courage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

yes i like that i can gift pearls to my friends for they bdays and shit, but this is bullshit, you cant buy ANY boss gear unless you gift that guy with some pearls, fking hell dude i have the money for it ok? ive spend near $6k on this game already in cosmetics for all my alts and shit, but i refuse to give pearls to a stranger just cuz "the system allows it" screw that, pls make this against the TOS or remove it completely , tbh is the only real p2w of this game, and i hate it that i dont see more people complain about it

tl;dr : pearl gifting is ruining the community 

edit: try to get a t8 horse without gifting $50 of pearls to the lucky fellow 

go get your own boss gear and t8 horse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just stop to buy ingame pixels with pearls.

As easy as it is.

They will sell the stuff anyway then for silver too.

It is not the failure of the company or sellers.

It is the buyers fault always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

yes i like that i can gift pearls to my friends for they bdays and shit, but this is bullshit, you cant buy ANY boss gear unless you gift that guy with some pearls, fking hell dude i have the money for it ok? ive spend near $6k on this game already in cosmetics for all my alts and shit, but i refuse to give pearls to a stranger just cuz "the system allows it" screw that, pls make this against the TOS or remove it completely , tbh is the only real p2w of this game, and i hate it that i dont see more people complain about it

tl;dr : pearl gifting is ruining the community 

edit: try to get a t8 horse without gifting $50 of pearls to the lucky fellow 

Or how about you go do it yourself...

You know... kill bosses...horse train...things that require effort...

 

You don't own your game account. You aren't guaranteed to keep or even continue service of your account. The publisher may rid you of your account at
their discretion at any time for any reason they deem necessary to do so.


Also i don't think he understands how law works..Or how gray areas of the law work.
This is currently a grey area of the law. When there are grey areas of the law regarding consequence to litigation they take
generations to change and establish a precedent.

Let's say you filed a lawsuit for the 5,000 dollars you spent on the game. You would never get the full 5,000 back because you did
In fact get use out of those things you spent.. Lets say a miracle happens and you win your lawsuit for 5,000. Well
In order for that to happen with this current precedent to take place and the current laws in place you would have to first
do the following.

1. Find out the exact worth of the company you are suing
2. Plan to spend 1/40th that companies net worth in lawyer fees
3. Find a lawyer willing to sue that company.
4. Find who had the idea and "intent" of deciding to allow this practice you see as "fraudulent" or "breach of contract"
5. Realize that they will blame the developer to end this case immediately.
6. Realize the developer is in a country thats laws are so polarizingly different that you now need another Lawyer.
One that is willing in a very small country to sue for you to harm a company from their "small" country.
Very unlikely to begin with.
 

And if you get that far...
7. Because of litigation laws in america,+ the grey area of now who really "owns" the internet in the first place,What
governing control we currently "don't " have over it since we have almost "litigated" the internet as a country to others.
as you can see with what happened with (icann) + 

 

This would likely cost you anywhere between 900+ dollar$ an hour for a return of 5,000 dollars,By the time you 'won"
You would owe more than you would gain by an amount you would not believe. 

The only reason people break grey areas of law like this is to establish Precedent when a FIRM really thinks what
you can do is a slam dunk. You are there for the principle . And usually when that is done it's funded by "angel investors"
to be pro-bono or to get something off of the back end (still invested) ,So you are either rich... Or a firm thinks you have
100% chance to win. Go ask any lawyer if they would take your case involving this,they would take your money,Pretend to
find a way to help you,Show you laws to encourage you to spend more money on more time for them to help you,Untill they
Bled you dry then tell you in the end that you knew the expectations going into it then laugh you out of their office,Or
a more honest lawyer would just tell you that your wasting your time to begin with. (few lawyers turn down money,even if
they know they can't win)

And lastly to even get a lawyer convinced to try to take this case you have to convince a "contract lawyer" that you
even have a case of 'breach of contract" since that is the scope of laws this would fall under.


I want you to think of this game as your freedom of speech,You have the right to go down the street and yell the F word at
people,But that doesn't stop you from consequences,You have the right to say as you want but if you threaten someones  life you have
broken a law using that simple freedom of speech. Therefor you are subject to consequences.

 

So just to recap.

Our government is not even the majority decider of internet law now,Each country has laws on certain things on the internet.
There is no precedent to win a case of this nature. The chance of a rich person attempting this lawsuit is so small that it's
actually funny someone even think's it.Even if there was no TOS or EULA it would still be almost impossible.
And even then the best way to prove guilt is proving Intent, Which is very difficult to do with breach of contract with
very little significant sample size of establishing intent based on the publishers/developers lack of being vocal with
It's customers period.

 

Even then you are in a game that says you own nothing in it. Do people even read EULA or TOS anymore? Sure they aren't law.
But they are written by lawyers who know the law. A contract is a contract as long as it adheres to specific laws that contract law
is applied to without violating your rights as a human. Or without forcing you to do something against the law to fulfill it.
Yet you are in a game that's rules say you own nothing. And you agreed to it by logging in and launching the game.
So if you own nothing,How can you sue for control over the thing you never owned? Because in the first place you would have to
prove you own it in order to establish that something cost you anything.. Even if you bought 100$ in  pearls,and a month later
the game shuts down,They would owe you  nothing. Because you never owned any of it to begin with.

 

I am tired of people trying to  call morality law. The two are very different things and concepts entirely.

Even if you still believed there was a possibility after all of that then GL getting this stalled out in court
for three years. Because you don't have a right to a "speedy" grand trial. Because it wouldn't work in small claims court
where you have the right to a speedy trial.

Ask yourself do you have a pro bono FIRM ready to support you? Or are you rich? Do you believe in miracles?

Even if you are any of those things.. At the end of the day A korean developer still owns the rights to all data even
The publishers here have on the servers (your characters) for instance. And north american/european law have
no jurisdiction over that digital data that you never owned to begin with. Instead you are at the whim of abiding by
rules to use their data to play with each day. Emphasis on their and not yours. Digital goods are the worst cases
to try to win on the internet.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 so put your preorder that you otherwise would have been happy to pay without pearl trading and you should win 

that's how I buy stuff when I don't get it from the nv for less first

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

One of THESE posts LMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The ToS is a legal binding contract in both the US and EU, by agreeing to it (which you did when you downloaded and started the game) you agreed to follow the rules it sets. The only time a ToS can be considered void is if it requires you to break local laws, the interpretation of which is down to the judge presiding the case. Please don't try to discuss the legality of things if you don't know what you're talking about, you're going to give people the wrong information. BDO functions under a "click wrap" agreement which means in order to download and play the game you NEED to read the ToS.

Here are the sources from a previous thread where someone tried to argue this point. 

Can Kakao make you waive your right to free speech? No. They can however make you waive you're right to a refund for their game under both EU and US law.

What are you going to sue them for, clearly labelling that some items are RNG and then allowing you to choose whether you want to purchase them or not? You're also not gambling with real money, you spent real money on buying Daum Cash and then converted that into pearls, pearls have no real world value and even then you're not gambling with the pearls. 

you are right. The person i quoted stated that you waived your rights which can be taken out of context. You cant waive all your rights is what I wanted to say

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've had 3 guildies get pieces of boss gear in the last week without gifting a single pearl. 

 

I think you are doing it wrong. 

The bid system is screwing people over more then the pearl gifting. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you are right. The person i quoted stated that you waived your rights which can be taken out of context. You cant waive all your rights is what I wanted to say

Sorry, should've been more specific to the rights that you waive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The ToS is a legal binding contract in both the US and EU, by agreeing to it (which you did when you downloaded and started the game) you agreed to follow the rules it sets. The only time a ToS can be considered void is if it requires you to break local laws, the interpretation of which is down to the judge presiding the case. Please don't try to discuss the legality of things if you don't know what you're talking about, you're going to give people the wrong information. BDO functions under a "click wrap" agreement which means in order to download and play the game you NEED to read the ToS.

Here are the sources from a previous thread where someone tried to argue this point. 

Can Kakao make you waive your right to free speech? No. They can however make you waive you're right to a refund for their game under both EU and US law.

What are you going to sue them for, clearly labelling that some items are RNG and then allowing you to choose whether you want to purchase them or not? You're also not gambling with real money, you spent real money on buying Daum Cash and then converted that into pearls, pearls have no real world value and even then you're not gambling with the pearls. 

Right, but have you specifically looked at cases that set a precedent for electronic terms of service? Judges have ruled in favor of consumers who were "misled" by fine print in electronic ToS before. The one I linked is a different circumstance but at least somewhat relevant.

There's other examples out there but I can't think of them off the top of my head and I'm on my phone. 

I'm not saying it'd be easy to fight them, or even feasible, just that a contract may be a legally binding agreement but it doesn't need to ask the consumer to do something blatantly illegal to be overturned as unlawful.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Right, but have you specifically looked at cases that set a precedent for electronic terms of service? Judges have ruled in favor of consumers who were "misled" by fine print in electronic ToS before. The one I linked is a different circumstance but at least somewhat relevant.

There's other examples out there but I can't think of them off the top of my head and I'm on my phone. 

I'm not saying it'd be easy to fight them, or even feasible, just that a contract may be a legally binding agreement but it doesn't need to ask the consumer to do something blatantly illegal to be overturned as unlawful.

If you read the case you linked, it is completely different to the case with BDO. The plaintiffs used a separate website and were enrolled in a monthly subscription for discounts through another website, to use one of the plaintiffs as an example he made a purchase through Beckett for sports memorabilia and then clicked a "Get cash back" button after making his purchase. There was a button that read "see more details" but he wasn't aware that by clicking the button without reading he would be subscribed to a second website, GreatFun. 

This ties in with one of the points I made in the threads I linked where an on-line contract can only hold up in court if everything is clear, if Kakao added to their ToS "Oh btdubs, if you download the game we're allowed to charge you $14.99 a month" whilst claiming that the game was free to download then the OP would have a case. 

As it stands however, calling the RNG elements in this game a scam, trying to claim that the company should be taxed for gambling or are prompting gambling with real money are fanciful ideas promoted by people who have no knowledge of the law and are whining because they've realised they don't like their ice-cream after buying it and eating in 7 months ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If you read the case you linked, it is completely different to the case with BDO. The plaintiffs used a separate website and were enrolled in a monthly subscription for discounts through another website, to use one of the plaintiffs as an example he made a purchase through Beckett for sports memorabilia and then clicked a "Get cash back" button after making his purchase. There was a button that read "see more details" but he wasn't aware that by clicking the button without reading he would be subscribed to a second website, GreatFun. 

This ties in with one of the points I made in the threads I linked where an on-line contract can only hold up in court if everything is clear, if Kakao added to their ToS "Oh btdubs, if you download the game we're allowed to charge you $14.99 a month" whilst claiming that the game was free to download then the OP would have a case. 

As it stands however, calling the RNG elements in this game a scam, trying to claim that the company should be taxed for gambling or are prompting gambling with real money are fanciful ideas promoted by people who have no knowledge of the law and are whining because they've realised they don't like their ice-cream after buying it and eating in 7 months ago. 

I did read it, I've read several similar ones, and I admitted it was a different circumstance but the point of linking it was that online transactions are very much subject to grey areas, moreso than other laws one might argue simply because these sorts of issues are relatively new in the judicial system. Handing money across a counter to a merchant is a lot simpler than something like this, so it's not as cut and dry as "you signed a contract". I can actually see what some people are saying when they feel cheated, but I'm not a judge so it's not up to me as to whether it's lawful or not. It's also prudent to point out that unless you've just got a bone to pick with Kakao, or you've spent enough money to make it worth your while, a lawsuit probably wouldn't be in anyone's best interests. And if you've spent enough money to make it worth your while, you probably have a shaky foundation for a case anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I did read it, I've read several similar ones, and I admitted it was a different circumstance but the point of linking it was that online transactions are very much subject to grey areas, moreso than other laws one might argue simply because these sorts of issues are relatively new in the judicial system. Handing money across a counter to a merchant is a lot simpler than something like this, so it's not as cut and dry as "you signed a contract". I can actually see what some people are saying when they feel cheated, but I'm not a judge so it's not up to me as to whether it's lawful or not. It's also prudent to point out that unless you've just got a bone to pick with Kakao, or you've spent enough money to make it worth your while, a lawsuit probably wouldn't be in anyone's best interests. And if you've spent enough money to make it worth your while, you probably have a shaky foundation for a case anyway.

I'm sorry but you're wrong, it's not the on-line transactions that are subject to grey area but the addition of slimy business tactics. It's not the fact that the case you linked was on-line, but rather that the company tried to hide charging the user a monthly fee. It's the same as making an agreement with someone and then whispering "Oh you also agree to pay me $100 a month", that won't stand in a court of law either. 

Handing money across the counter isn't actually simpler for the sole fact that unlike with on-lie transactions there isn't always a paper trail. With games like BDO you can't just give Kakao your money but rather you have to go through a third party, be it PayPal or a credit card company which means that there's a trail from when you first sent them money that BDO can then turn around to use and say "Well actually, since the date where this payment was made the user has spent 178 hours on-line". 

As it stands, the ToS for BDO are a legally binding contract and it'll be very difficult if not impossible to attempt a charge-back or to sue them because someone thinks that they aren't bound by them. We already saw this when all the people who tried to charge-back because the game was going "P2W" ended up losing their charge-backs with PayPal and getting their accounts banned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm sorry but you're wrong, it's not the on-line transactions that are subject to grey area but the addition of slimy business tactics. It's not the fact that the case you linked was on-line, but rather that the company tried to hide charging the user a monthly fee. It's the same as making an agreement with someone and then whispering "Oh you also agree to pay me $100 a month", that won't stand in a court of law either. 

Handing money across the counter isn't actually simpler for the sole fact that unlike with on-lie transactions there isn't always a paper trail. With games like BDO you can't just give Kakao your money but rather you have to go through a third party, be it PayPal or a credit card company which means that there's a trail from when you first sent them money that BDO can then turn around to use and say "Well actually, since the date where this payment was made the user has spent 178 hours on-line". 

As it stands, the ToS for BDO are a legally binding contract and it'll be very difficult if not impossible to attempt a charge-back or to sue them because someone thinks that they aren't bound by them. We already saw this when all the people who tried to charge-back because the game was going "P2W" ended up losing their charge-backs with PayPal and getting their accounts banned. 

You're missing my point with linking that case still, I'm afraid. It was subject to a grey area because most of the time, before the grand internet was a thing, contracts had to be signed physically in paper. Now with the world wide web, information delivery is instant and, before this ruling, some companies tried to assume that simply notifying in a change of contract was enough to change the terms of the agreement. 

Again, my point is that the use of digital means required a new outlook on a law that previously didn't even need to be considered because digital signatures weren't things. Your signature was either there, or it wasn't.

In the case of BDO, again, I'm not a judge nor a lawyer, but RNG games ride the line of gambling. People might've not thought that RNG was as big of an issue as it is, I don't know. Look at the CS:GO fiasco for something that hits a little closer to home but as far as I know, that's even still pending. Again, nothing is firmly set into precedence, but to say it couldn't be is wrong, imo. Especially in today's world. I don't think BDO would be the cornerstone of any case like this though, it's just not big enough.

Easy Google search leads me to a decent summary of what I mean:

In 2016, Australian senator Nick Xenophon planned to introduce legislation that would classify games like CS:GODota 2, and other games with virtual economies with the option to use real currency to buy items with random or different value (as in the CS:GO weapon cases) as games of chance. Under this proposed law, such games would be regulated under gambling laws, requiring them to carry clear warning labels and may be required to enforce age requirements to play. Xenophon stated that he believed these games "purport to be one thing" but are "morphing into full-on gambling and that itself is incredibly misleading and deceptive".

Food for thought in any case.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You dont have to be involved in any form of gift trading if you choose not to. I personally will agree to remove this feature just to shut the whiners up. If you want boss gear or T8 horse, you can take your effort to farm for it instead of demanding others to list them.

This game is all about RNG. You just have to keep going to every boss fight you can and breed as many horses as you can for the prize you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If you read the case you linked, it is completely different to the case with BDO. The plaintiffs used a separate website and were enrolled in a monthly subscription for discounts through another website, to use one of the plaintiffs as an example he made a purchase through Beckett for sports memorabilia and then clicked a "Get cash back" button after making his purchase. There was a button that read "see more details" but he wasn't aware that by clicking the button without reading he would be subscribed to a second website, GreatFun. 

This ties in with one of the points I made in the threads I linked where an on-line contract can only hold up in court if everything is clear, if Kakao added to their ToS "Oh btdubs, if you download the game we're allowed to charge you $14.99 a month" whilst claiming that the game was free to download then the OP would have a case. 

As it stands however, calling the RNG elements in this game a scam, trying to claim that the company should be taxed for gambling or are prompting gambling with real money are fanciful ideas promoted by people who have no knowledge of the law and are whining because they've realised they don't like their ice-cream after buying it and eating in 7 months ago. 

But the game is hiding all the RNG odds though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites