• 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

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

it is ok. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

EU lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've said this once before, and I'll say it here. If gifting pearls wasn't a possibility, the 5 pieces of boss gear that I've sold in exchange for pearls would still be sitting in my storage.

for game balance, better in your warehouse than spread around for pearls. This is exactlywhat p2w means: buying ed game gear for real money 

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

thats THE point. Pearl gifting will remain and the game will slowly die ad it always happens

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.

this kind of interpretation strictly depends on the law system you are in. For civil law systems that is not correct. You can put whatever you want in a contract, but that does not apply if It is contrary to common sense, laws, rules, habits (depending on the country)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

this kind of interpretation strictly depends on the law system you are in. For civil law systems that is not correct. You can put whatever you want in a contract, but that does not apply if It is contrary to common sense, laws, rules, habits (depending on the country)

Hello Captain Obvious ... Of course an illegally formed contract is illegal, by nature, and thus a contract can be nullyfied, otherwise criminal deals would be legitimized.

But I'm from a country of civil law, so if you can read it.

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=1BFF04D4B5E5D37586E18AE03C1FEAE1.tpdila12v_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000032040777&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721&dateTexte=20161014

That's the first rule of all :  contract is law between parties.

The contract you signed with Kakao is totally legal, nothing in it can cause nullity, parties are legally able, there is no vice or alteration of consent, no hidden default, no illicit cause or object.

ToS are part of said contract, so they bind you, because you gave your consent.

Edited by Capitaine Courage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hello Captain Obvious ... Of course an illegally formed contract is illegal, by nature, and thus a contract can be nullyfied, otherwise criminal deals would be legitimized.

But I'm from a country of civil law, so if you can read it.

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=1BFF04D4B5E5D37586E18AE03C1FEAE1.tpdila12v_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000032040777&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721&dateTexte=20161014

That's the first rule of all :  contract is law between parties.

The contract you signed with Kakao is totally legal, nothing in it can cause nullity, parties are legally able, there is no vice or alteration of consent, no hidden default, no illicit cause or object,

Except the Art. 1103 has a lot of laws countering it everywhere in the Civil Code, Criminal Law and Jurisprudence. 

Bad article to quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Except the Art. 1103 has a lot of laws countering it everywhere in the Civil Code, Criminal Law and Jurisprudence. 

Bad article to quote.

Of course it has, like every general rule since forever.

But nothing in what you signed with Kakao is illegal, it's still a contract, and the ToS are still a component of said contract.
You can twist things has much has you want, you are bound by contract with Kakao, as it was the original question.
You wouldn't even have access to the game otherwise.

Edited by Capitaine Courage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hello Captain Obvious ... Of course an illegally formed contract is illegal, by nature, and thus a contract can be nullyfied, otherwise criminal deals would be legitimized.

But I'm from a country of civil law, so if you can read it.

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=1BFF04D4B5E5D37586E18AE03C1FEAE1.tpdila12v_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000032040777&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721&dateTexte=20161014

That's the first rule of all :  contract is law between parties.

The contract you signed with Kakao is totally legal, nothing in it can cause nullity, parties are legally able, there is no vice or alteration of consent, no hidden default, no illicit cause or object.

ToS are part of said contract, so they bind you, because you gave your consent.

Dear friend, if you havent red or understood a post, do not answer (you risk to seem childish).

The contract can be legal, some parts can be simply as "non existent". That has nothig to do with the "nullity", but with the non existance of some specific parts, EVEN IF there are no laws counteracting them.

If "the contract you signed with Kakao is totally legal, nothing in it can cause nullity, parties are legally able, there is no vice or alteration of consent, no hidden default, no illicit cause or object" is not something you can state, does not depend on your opinion and your opinion counts zero.

So do not give it as absolutely sure 100%

Edited by Antoniius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Dear friend, if you havent red or understood a post, do not answer (you risk to seem childish).

The contract can be legal, some parts can be simply as "non existent". That has nothig to do with the "nullity", but with the non existance of some specific parts, EVEN IF there are no laws counteracting them.

If "the contract you signed with Kakao is totally legal, nothing in it can cause nullity, parties are legally able, there is no vice or alteration of consent, no hidden default, no illicit cause or object" is not something you can state, does not depend on your opinion and your opinion counts zero.

So do not give it as absolutely sure 100%

Don't do that, even more when bringing some childsih behaviour assumprtions that just achieve one thing : hurting your credibility.

You're the one looking foolish rifght there, because you don't even seem know what the original point was about in the first place.
Next time, read before telling people to do so, apply your own advices.

What I originally quoted

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 point is : does ToS bind you ? They do, since they are a component of the contract you signed, and the contract binds you, so the general rules applies.
Unless the legislator of the judge says the contrary, they do bind you. Did they say so ? Do we have a precedent ? A case that you could bring there ? A specific rule in that applies to this specific case. No. So the point still stands, ToS binds you, you gave your consent.

If you didn't actually signed a contract with Kakao you wouldn't even be able to play the game. There is no fantasized interpretation there. You read the clauses of the contract, gave your consent and signed them to access the game.

Edited by Capitaine Courage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

The point is : does ToS bind you ? They do, since they are a component of the contract you signed, and the contract binds you, so the general rules applies.
Unless the legislator of the judge says the contrary, they do bind you. Did they say so ? Do we have a precedent ? A case that you could bring there ? A specific rule in that applies to this specific case. No. So the point still stands, ToS binds you, you gave your consent.

If you didn't actually signed a contract with Kakao you wouldn't even be able to play the game. There is no fantasized interpretation there. You read the clauses of the contract, gave your consent and signed them to access the game.

No ToS is not law, just because it is legal doesn't mean it's 100% lawsuit-proof, there is always a good chance u'll lose the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No ToS is not law, just because it is legal doesn't mean it's 100% lawsuit-proof, there is always a good chance u'll lose the case.

Then it's on your charge to bring the proof to the court that there is something wrong with it, or that your consent wasn't fully given, since you signed it in the first place to access the game. Playing the game is not possible otherwise.

If you can't, then ToS apply since you signed it.

Edited by Capitaine Courage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

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. 

The case you linked was from 2008 so I'm not sure why you're bringing up the dark ages before the internet. There was no grey area in the case you linked, the company hid the fact that they were going to charge the plaintiffs a monthly fee which is against the law. The case you linked doesn't really harm the argument that e-contracts are legally binding because the law directly states that everything must be clearly labelled so that a company can't charge someone and say they accepted because they didn't read the tiny text linked under "see more details". 

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.

It doesn't need a new outlook because the law has already been passed and covers two types of on-line contracts. One's when you have to physically click a button that says "I accept" which is legally binding and is the same as a signature and one's where you accept the terms by continuing to browse. BDO is governed by the first and the first is legally binding and considered a contract. 

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.

Once again you're trying to compare an apple to a Ford Fiesta to somehow validate your point. You're also mistaking cash shop RNG, which can be considered gambling, and normal RNG. As far as BDO's cash shop is considered what you pay for is what you get, it's not like other games where you spend real money on a box and have a small chance of getting the item you want. 

No ToS is not law, just because it is legal doesn't mean it's 100% lawsuit-proof, there is always a good chance u'll lose the case.

No one is trying to argue that the ToS is law, however you are trying to argue that the ToS isn't legally binding which is woefully untrue. You can't just say "There's a good chance you'll lose" when you don't know what they're contesting or why they're going to court in the first place. What you're showing is that you know nothing about on-line contracts or their legality and you're trying to give people the wrong information which can be very harmful. 

But the game is hiding all the RNG odds though. 

Which isn't illegal, so please don't presume to use this as a complaint. I know which law you're trying to quote and it just shows that you've most probably just skimmed the title of a Buzzfeed article and think you know the law. Firstly the RNG gambling law only applies to South Korea (China in May) and even if the SAME company publishes the game in SK and elsewhere they only have to publish the numbers in SK. Secondly the law doesn't apply to RNG, but rather to RNG cash-boxes so in fact BDO would not be affected by this law at all. What this law deals with are RNG loot boxes that you purchase directly with real money, things like pets won't be affected by this law because you are paying for the pet itself; the process of breeding is completely free. 

I understand that you're upset about things in this game and are obsessed with calling Kakao out, but please steer away from topics that involve legal terms or advice because you're going to give some unsuspecting forum user some bad advice. We saw this happen before when people were telling others it's ok to charge-back when the "P2W" fiasco happened without being aware that they were telling people to commit fraud.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Player A offering boss piece for pearls
Player B sends pearls to A then A puts the boss piece on market
Player C snipes the boss piece from MP

whats wrong with that ?

Only stupid players engage in this activity because there is absolutely no guarantee that you will get the boss item or the other player will send you pearls.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Player A offering boss piece for pearls
Player B sends pearls to A then A puts the boss piece on market
Player C snipes the boss piece from MP

whats wrong with that ?

Only stupid players engage in this activity because there is absolutely no guarantee that you will get the boss item or the other player will send you pearls.

It reduces the frequency of said gear being listed though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

LOL @ supreme comrade Pluge

No I'm not calling out PA, I have stated in my previous posts that I'm never gonna sue PA or its publisher because I'm smarter than that. But like the stuff they have like pearl gifting BS is just asking for trouble. Since there is no "trade at the same time" function in this game, somebody's gotta send their shit in first, which is asking for getting scammed type of system. Anyone with a brain would never send their shit first but u know, a lot of ppl don't have brains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The case you linked was from 2008 so I'm not sure why you're bringing up the dark ages before the internet. There was no grey area in the case you linked, the company hid the fact that they were going to charge the plaintiffs a monthly fee which is against the law. The case you linked doesn't really harm the argument that e-contracts are legally binding because the law directly states that everything must be clearly labelled so that a company can't charge someone and say they accepted because they didn't read the tiny text linked under "see more details". 

It doesn't need a new outlook because the law has already been passed and covers two types of on-line contracts. One's when you have to physically click a button that says "I accept" which is legally binding and is the same as a signature and one's where you accept the terms by continuing to browse. BDO is governed by the first and the first is legally binding and considered a contract. 

Once again you're trying to compare an apple to a Ford Fiesta to somehow validate your point. You're also mistaking cash shop RNG, which can be considered gambling, and normal RNG. As far as BDO's cash shop is considered what you pay for is what you get, it's not like other games where you spend real money on a box and have a small chance of getting the item you want. 

 

No one is trying to argue that the ToS is law, however you are trying to argue that the ToS isn't legally binding which is woefully untrue. You can't just say "There's a good chance you'll lose" when you don't know what they're contesting or why they're going to court in the first place. What you're showing is that you know nothing about on-line contracts or their legality and you're trying to give people the wrong information which can be very harmful. 

 

Which isn't illegal, so please don't presume to use this as a complaint. I know which law you're trying to quote and it just shows that you've most probably just skimmed the title of a Buzzfeed article and think you know the law. Firstly the RNG gambling law only applies to South Korea (China in May) and even if the SAME company publishes the game in SK and elsewhere they only have to publish the numbers in SK. Secondly the law doesn't apply to RNG, but rather to RNG cash-boxes so in fact BDO would not be affected by this law at all. What this law deals with are RNG loot boxes that you purchase directly with real money, things like pets won't be affected by this law because you are paying for the pet itself; the process of breeding is completely free. 

I understand that you're upset about things in this game and are obsessed with calling Kakao out, but please steer away from topics that involve legal terms or advice because you're going to give some unsuspecting forum user some bad advice. We saw this happen before when people were telling others it's ok to charge-back when the "P2W" fiasco happened without being aware that they were telling people to commit fraud.  

I agree with most everything you said but I think you think I'm trying to argue a point that I'm not even sided on and are continually missing the point of me linking the case that I linked originally. But anyway. 

To say that we're not at a point where online gaming, particularly games with cash shops, are being side eyed by politicians is flat out wrong. You can go sign up to be BDO's pro bono attorney if you like, but from an objective standpoint of someone who works with the law daily in their career (paralegal), BDO may garner some attention (unlikely) or be subject to certain changes in the future which may or may not open doors retroactively. It's a lot of "if", which is all I was putting forth in the first place. You can calm down, lol.

 

Edited by Cardiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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. 

That's a shady loophole they are abusing for which they should also be sued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's a shady loophole they are abusing for which they should also be sued.

It's not a loophole at all, when you buy DaumCash and convert it to pearls you are agreeing to waiving your rights to a refund, they're allowed to do this by EU and US law. 

I agree with most everything you said but I think you think I'm trying to argue a point that I'm not even sided on and are continually missing the point of me linking the case that I linked originally. But anyway. 

To say that we're not at a point where online gaming, particularly games with cash shops, are being side eyed by politicians is flat out wrong. You can go sign up to be BDO's pro bono attorney if you like, but from an objective standpoint of someone who works with the law daily in their career (paralegal), BDO may garner some attention (unlikely) or be subject to certain changes in the future which may or may not open doors retroactively. It's a lot of "if", which is all I was putting forth in the first place. You can calm down, lol.

We're not here to discuss the legality of BDO's business decisions, we're discussing the legality of the ToS that you accepted when you downloaded the game. If you go back to my original post it was about how the ToS of a game are in fact legally binding and not open to interpretation as one user claimed. You then linked a case that was completely different to somehow justify that ToS can be open to interpretation. If you look at the case you linked it wasn't the ToS that came under scrutiny but the fact that the company tried to hide them or make them difficult to find so that when the user was inevitably charged they could turn round and say "Well, you read the ToS and agreed". 

BDO doesn't have any hidden costs or agenda in its ToS, they are just a straight set of rules that you'll find are every similar to other MMOs. Some users believe that since the ToS are legally binding they can charge-back and never face any consequences which is completely incorrect. Also, since we're bring our jobs into question as to somehow validate our points I'm also a doctor who is also a high-court judge, you can Google me, "Mantis Toboggan".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

ToS are only legally binding where they don't contradict the laws of the country you're in, aren't they?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If people would read TOS of stuff they agreed too they would cringe a lot. TOS are there mostly to protect and benefit companies of their customers and lawsuits in my opinion. However that doesn't mean a TOS or any kind legal bidding agreement will protect companies from everything. Look at united airlines 255m lost because they though they could do whatever they want lmao. Also don't like pearl gifting either >.>

Edited by Dalenos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

of there customers and

"there"? of where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"there"? of where?

Oops meant their >.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think there is a lot of confusion around the ToS legality, i can only talk from the spanish (And i guess somehow from a EU too) perspective. Fact its both arguments are right, ToS is legally binding to some extent, but  they aren´t definitive like a law. At Spain as a matter of fact you just can´t put in a contract or a ToS wathever you want and make it a binding contract, there are customer laws here to protect customers and those must be respected in letter and and spirit. 

That doesn´t make a ToS who vulnerate those laws automatically void, but depend on the extent of the infraction it can make the clauses that break the law void.

There is also another problem with the gaming world, its a service that usually require some investment from the customer to get to the top of the game, this effort can be either time or money. The question is ¿Until wath point its valid to switch the game business model? We can all agree that the  company has the right to develop the game, but, imagine for a moment he chooses to sell high end gear for real cash. ¿Will all the players have invested so much effort if they know this was going to happen? Probably not. ¿Does this fit a tipical bait and switch scam? Probably yes. 

I really find hard to put a line and say "This is legal in X country" and luckily im no one to take that responsability, but, there are a lot of arguments that can be made in a court that can´t simply be refuted with "A ToS say i can do wathever i want as a company".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You have to be really desperate if you are paying pearls just so someone else lists an item that he wants to sell anyway.

But as there are so many guys who do it... no wonder the sellers all want pearls now even for the lousiest crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The main problem here is the RNG in virtual goods you purchase, it's a lottery, you buy something that may or may not work (i.e horse skill change coupons) etc, that's akin to gambling and casinos etc, and more so due to the hidden mechanics which are never exposed in the goods description. You buy a coupon that says it will randomly change into another skill for your horse, but you are not told the chance to get the good skills you want have been extremely lowered in order for you to spend more.

This is shady business, and the fact they use a dual currency system isn't gonna save their asses in a court, it's just abusing a loophole.

At the very least they should be taxed as gambling/casinos etc and pay higher taxes.

Edited by Shiraishin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites