126 replies to this topic

[I've got your kisses]

They refunded me all my gem purchases. $320

Looks like the book is closed. It's bittersweet for sure. Nice to have the money back but I would have preferred my account to be un-banned. A couple of friends have offered me accounts that they aren't using but I don't want to jump through it all again. I had 4 level 80's fully geared in exotics, all crafting mastered, and just needed the precursor to complete my legendary.

Anyways- the point of this post is not to argue if it was an exploit or not, or if I'm a horrible person or not. But just to show that ANet was serious enough about the ban to give me a good chunk of change back so that I wouldn't play my account anymore.

Hopefully some other peeps can also get their gem $ back.

[this a pointed]

I, on 11 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

They refunded me all my gem purchases. $320

Looks like the book is closed. It's bittersweet for sure. Nice to have the money back but I would have preferred my account to be un-banned. A couple of friends have offered me accounts that they aren't using but I don't want to jump through it all again. I had 4 level 80's fully geared in exotics, all crafting mastered, and just needed the precursor to complete my legendary.

Anyways- the point of this post is not to argue if it was an exploit or not, or if I'm a horrible person or not. But just to show that ANet was serious enough about the ban to give me a good chunk of change back so that I wouldn't play my account anymore.

Hopefully some other peeps can also get their gem $ back.

Hey,
Im sorry to hear that you were banned for this so called "exploit".
But I am happy to hear they are refunding gem purchases!

[Desild]

I won't gloat on your misery, but it was mighty decent of them to refund you those gems. Not sure if Blizzard would be so kind if this were in a different game.

Just to show how ruthless Anet is with their bans. Thousands that walk on the fringe of what is legal and legit gold making activities, but if you have tha gall of crossing that fringe, you can bet there will be consequences.

[FoxBat]

If Anet is going to arbitrarily ban people for their poorly-defined idea of exploit, then I applaud them for at least not stealing money in the process.

[Lordkrall]

Hmm, rather weird that they would give money back to people that have broken the ToS they signed, but good for you I suppose.

[Bonana]

Lordkrall, on 11 January 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

Hmm, rather weird that they would give money back to people that have broken the ToS they signed, but good for you I suppose.

I don't understand that either. But who cares right? Anet is at least kind enough to refund money on gems. A friend of mine got banned for the karma gear exploit, anet refunded his full purchase of $60. He had the game about 2 months.

Very rare you get corps to refund you on your purchase.

[Lordkrall]

Bonana, on 11 January 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

I don't understand that either. But who cares right? Anet is at least kind enough to refund money on gems. A friend of mine got banned for the karma gear exploit, anet refunded his full purchase of $60. He had the game about 2 months.

Very rare you get corps to refund you on your purchase.

Indeed. I don't really agree with it, but it do look really good for ArenaNet and they do seem quite fair.

[Limbo]

Woah, Anet is the best! ♥♥♥♥

But seriously, that was really cool of them.

[Nabuko Darayon]

This might jusst be the begginer's luck. I don't see this happening so often, or at all in the future..

[d_fens]

It's not that weird, if he is an EU citizen. EULA does not have power in EU, because EU law requires it to be fully known to the customer before paying for software (paying, not installing). His account was terminated based on EULA terms, which he did not need to follow, hence the refund. They just avoided legal complaint, they would have lost.

Edited by d_fens, 11 January 2013 - 08:04 PM.

[Pipples]

d_fens, on 11 January 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

It's not that weird, if he is an EU citizen. EULA does not have power in EU, because EU law requires it to be fully known to the customer before paying for software (paying, not installing). His account was terminated based on EULA terms, which he did not need to follow, hence the refund. They just avoided legal complaint, they would have lost.

They could have refunded the cost of the game and called it even. He could have argued he didn't see the EULA before the purchase of the game, but he had to agree to it in order to play so had to have agreed to it before buying gems, unless he actually bought gems before his first log-on all in one shot (very, very doubtful).

And the EULA in MMOs is, for the most part, boilerplate so even claiming he wasn't aware of it's content would have been difficult if he had any history of MMO gaming. The basic MMO EULA hasn't changed much in a decade.

[Millimidget]

Pipples, on 11 January 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

They could have refunded the cost of the game and called it even.

They could have. I'm sure their legal counsel told them it's cheaper to refund the gem purchases as well, and avoid any potential for a lawsuit. That advice probably cost them more than the refund + effecting the refund did, since allegedly it was so few accounts banned.

Also, there's surely a distinction between a monthly subscription paid for a service, and the direct purchase of virtual assets.

The only person I'm feeling awesome about in all this is the OP; I hope those funds go far towards finding you a new game to play.

Edited by Millimidget, 11 January 2013 - 09:09 PM.

[I've got your kisses]

Initially I did not realize I was banned for the Snowflake stuff- since I had done it a few weeks before.

I'm in the states.

Edited by Leyana, 15 January 2013 - 12:30 AM.
Please don't post private correspondence

[Gileas898]

It's funny how Arena Net selectively bans certain exploiters but let others go freely.

I feel for you OP, Arena Net has always been erratic when it comes to what an exploit actually is, and has always been handing out bans under questionable circumstances.

[TGIFrisbie]

They should have refunded NOTHING.  Period.

[Lordkrall]

Gileas898, on 11 January 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

It's funny how Arena Net selectively bans certain exploiters but let others go freely.

I feel for you OP, Arena Net has always been erratic when it comes to what an exploit actually is, and has always been handing out bans under questionable circumstances.

Oh, please tell me about all these exploiters that are not banned. I am sure ArenaNet would be quite interested as well.

[I've got your kisses]

TGIFrisbie, on 11 January 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

They should have refunded NOTHING.  Period.

I made some purchases between when I actually salvaged snowflake jewelry and when they banned me- since it took them 2 weeks. If they hadn't of refunded at least that amount I could have contested it with American Express and gotten some of it back that way. It was a good move to refund all my gem purchases since it defuses most of the gripes I could have had and it prevents customers from filing credit card complaints.

[Millimidget]

Lordkrall, on 11 January 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Oh, please tell me about all these exploiters that are not banned. I am sure ArenaNet would be quite interested as well.

Everyone who exploited HotW?

But the problem with banning them is that it would be too expensive; too many players abused it, and too many EU players would need to be refunded. So they trot out some excuse about protecting the economy.

[Gileas898]

Lordkrall, on 11 January 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Oh, please tell me about all these exploiters that are not banned. I am sure ArenaNet would be quite interested as well.

People who exploited Arah? HotW? CoE? CM? TA?

As the above poster said. Too many people would be banned. Now that they find an exploit that only a small amount of people did, they can safely ban them and look like they are actually doing something.

[Var]

FoxBat, on 11 January 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

If Anet is going to arbitrarily ban people for their poorly-defined idea of exploit, then I applaud them for at least not stealing money in the process.

275,000 of the high end crafting item and backbone, of which there normally ever only 90,000 available on the TP, spread over less than 200 people, doesnt seem all that arbitrary or poorly defined to me.

[Strawberry Nubcake]

Soooo the OP lives in a country where the EULA isn't digital toilet paper and Anet made the decision to give a full refund for not just the game but gem purchases as well just to keep them from getting mad...  what the hell?  

I didn't really agree with how Anet handled the snowflake situation, but this is straight up stupid.  It really makes me wonder if anyone over at Anet has a brain.  Why make us pay for the game and agree to anything if this is how it's going to be?  Knowing that I could lose access to the game and the money I spent because I live in the US is one reason I try to stay as far away as possible from stuff that seems shady.  Well.. that and it feels scummy...

275k ectos?  200 people?  I'm bad at math but uhhh... damn!  I guess Anet really should feel bad since there was no way for these dimwits to know that what they were doing was an exploit.  It's not like they were standing at the jeweler like "dolla dolla bill y'all!!!" or something.  

[FoxBat]

Var, on 11 January 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

275,000 of the high end crafting item and backbone, of which there normally ever only 90,000 available on the TP, spread over less than 200 people, doesnt seem all that arbitrary or poorly defined to me.

Maybe you can show me those numbers in the EULA then.

Regardless of whether you agree with their judgement call, It's still a judgement call, and it's ridiculous that a company should reserve the right to unilaterally steal customers money on that basis with no oversight or due process.

Edited by FoxBat, 12 January 2013 - 12:26 AM.

[Perm Shadow Form]

Arena Net wants everyone to be piss poor in their game so they can sell more gems, simple logic.

[Runkleford]

Wow. What's the limitation on refunds anyway? I should get myself banned once I'm sure that I'm finished with my game and get a full refund. I'm joking but this refund policy seems ripe to be exploited. I can buy all the gems I want, enjoy all the benefits to be had with them and then get a full refund later.

[XgreatArtist]

This move was unexpected. Normally companies just take away all the purchased stuff. Sorry about your ban, as anet's idiotic ban hammer is ruthless. Kinda like the gestapo but anyway, it is nice for them to refund your purchases.

[Fizzypop]

Lordkrall, on 11 January 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

Hmm, rather weird that they would give money back to people that have broken the ToS they signed, but good for you I suppose.

It's because TOS and EULAs don't mean that much in court for a variety of reasons. They are often used because it's a "cover your ass technique" and it's easier to point you agreed to X to get customers to give up complaints even if they have the legal right to do so. Very few customers will take such a small thing to court. I know people want to act like they are some holy device, but they aren't. Even contracts aren't always legally binding because the content of them still has to follow the law. Many countries and even the US are beginning to struggle with the idea of digital goods.

Edited by Fizzypop, 12 January 2013 - 01:01 AM.

[Strawberry Nubcake]

Runkleford, on 12 January 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

Wow. What's the limitation on refunds anyway? I should get myself banned once I'm sure that I'm finished with my game and get a full refund. I'm joking but this refund policy seems ripe to be exploited. I can buy all the gems I want, enjoy all the benefits to be had with them and then get a full refund later.

After seeing this thread and the other that was fairly active a while back when people were getting refunds for every reason imaginable after playing the game for several months... my guess is none.  It seems like you ask for a refund and you get a refund.

I can't wait to turn GW2 into a nice handbag in a few years!  

[Keepy]

Gileas898, on 11 January 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

It's funny how Arena Net selectively bans certain exploiters but let others go freely.

I feel for you OP, Arena Net has always been erratic when it comes to what an exploit actually is, and has always been handing out bans under questionable circumstances.

Im with you and i want to say i showed arena net screenshots and i have mail as proof in my account of a guy who scammed me 50 gold(now not talking if i should had use the TP if i was too silly to trust or whatever) The thing is the guy still playing and ive heard he scammed like 4 players more and he didnt got ban.

[Var]

FoxBat, on 12 January 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

Maybe you can show me those numbers in the EULA then.

You can do better than this, I know you can. You can have an inverse opinion whether or not you think the activity was an exploit or not, but you and I both know specifics are never mentioned in the EULA. Its a general rule, its built on generalities, and attempting to say that the lack of specific wording for a specific case is reason to dismiss the case and bypass the rules, then that's simply silly. We may not agree with whether or not rules were actually broken but to say that it doesn't matter because its not specifically mention is wrong.

FoxBat, on 12 January 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

Regardless of whether you agree with their judgement call, It's still a judgement call, and it's ridiculous that a company should reserve the right to unilaterally steal customers money on that basis with no oversight or due process.

Seeing as how I never said a word about the money one way or the other, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm simply saying its not "arbitrary". 275,000 ecto is quite the number when the market itself has never seen that many (well until that moment) within the span of so little time. Moreover, considering the number, and the reports of "I got banned for only 100!" either we have a lot of dishonest people or a good chunk of those 200 were using scripts to salvage that many ecto (the average is, what, 1375 per person? If a bunch of people only made 100 or so, other had to have been making thousands). If you're botting to take advantage of something like this some alarm bells should really be going off to say "Something ain't right here Johnny!"

Edited by Var, 12 January 2013 - 01:25 AM.

[Flavvor]

People who got banned knew they were exploiting. They took advantage of what ANet missed in QC. I'm surprised only 200 were banned. ANet was very generous the refunded you your money you spent on gems.