EA Bans Users for Asking for Refunds

[chadachada123]

My thoughts on EA's online support:

I'm not really surprised when EA does something retarded or quasi-illegal. I can only hope that they eventually go under in the face of new, young video game developer-publishers.

 

[KelDG]

It is not really a tricky situation though. The game was not working, a refund was asked for and it was not given.

I would say it was a stupid situation brought about by the customer. The game has been out for all of two days. Patience is a word that needs to be said.

Of course, I guess there are people out there that don't understand that there has never been a release of an online game that has been totally perfect where everybody could play properly from the start.

It is a given with online gaming and technology, no amount of waiting extra time before release to tweak the game and the servers is going to ensure a perfect launch.

Really, it is just a case of a pretty damned impatient customer that apparently doesn't understand the stuff he is getting into, and is too stubborn to wait for things to be fixed.

Going to have to disagree with you there, patience has nothing to do with it. Consumer buys product, product does not work, refund should be given. It is entirely up to EA to provide the service as described or give a refund.

It does not matter if it might work in a few days, or get more stable in a week. The consumer does not hold the responsibility to come onto forums and check the history of on-line game releases before making a decision, it is up to the provider to make sure these things work. This might be unreasonable to the company because there are unseen problem that will arise, but that does not stop the fact the customer is entitled to a refund there and then, and can make a decision at a later date weather to repurchase. It is entirely up to EA to provide the service as described or give a refund.

Think of it this way, to be pro EA in this argument is to erode your own consumer rights.

If it does not work then the consumer has the right to receive a refund. Simple.

 

[Mike Fang]

It is not really a tricky situation though. The game was not working, a refund was asked for and it was not given.

If a refund was given, that account would have been disabled (you are not really paying for a game in this case, you are paying for access to a server). Even if the customer does not delete it off their hard drive, the game would not operate as it needs access to the server to function.

When I meant a tricky situation, I was referring to finding a way to return something that doesn't physically exist, not the reason why refunds were being asked for. However, if access keys can be voided or accounts disable from accessing game servers, then yes, that does clear up that question.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

I bought Dead Space 3 like 10 days ago and it never appeared in the 'My Games' tab on Origin, the email I got after purchasing the game never contained a product code, and the unlock code field in the invoice was blank. Since then I've tried to get in touch with them through the forums, through Live Chat, and through the UK helpline. The first day I got through to someone on Live Chat the chat was "disconnected" halfway through the chat and I wasn't getting an option to get back in touch for days. I made multiple posts on the Origin forums without getting a single reply from an EA rep, and this was in a thread with 16 pages of people having the same issue as me. When I tried phoning the helpline I spent 25 minutes listening to shit Hawaiian music waiting for someone to pick up, but gave up because they were taking so long.

A few days later I tried the Live Chat again, got through to someone, after going through the process of giving my order number, verifying my email address and payment method, she goes away to confirm the order. When she came back she's like "Okay, well it shows for us that the transaction was completed but I can't see any product code either. I suggest you contact out customer helpline." I asked if she could just email me a product code I could redeem and get my game, but apparently she was unable to do that. I still don't have my game.

 

[MoltenSilver]

Wow, isn't it a bit early for refunds in the first place?

To answer my own question, yes, yes it is too early. The vast majority of time, online games aren't going to work exactly right on release, it really is an unavoidable fact. A company can plan for ever contingency, but then things can happen out of the blue, even things that tests upon tests say will never happen.

EA were always up front about the fact the game was going to need an always on connection and that some of the game was going to be controlled via the servers.

Seriously, consumer rule number one for such a game is to not expect the launch to go smoothly.

Also, as people have been pointing out about the charge backs, with that EA has a very valid reason for such cowardice when dealing with a problem.

People need to take their refund request to EA first.

Of course, after giving them time to regroup the system to accommodate the actual amount of people lining up to play and address the problems caused by the influx of so many people.

The SimCity released like two days ago. Two days is not a viable maintenance and repair window. I would give them a couple weeks at the least, month at the most.

I whole heartedly disagree. The product does not work. The buyer didn't pay to have 'a product that would work at some point in the future'. I'm willing bet that no where prior to buying it was it visible to the consumer that EA claimed 'the game will not work for the first few days upon release'. If they had openly said that at some point (or course they wouldn't, but hypothetically), I might see the other side.

It's not an excuse to say that it's happened to every other online game ever; reasonable to expect yes, acceptable no: they sold the game under the agreement that by giving EA money, the purchaser could play this game. The purchaser gave them money, EA isn't providing them the ability to play that game.
Sounds like a defective product to me

 

[rob_simple]

I'm sure an EA apologist will be along shortly to tell us why this is perfectly ok, and A GOOD THING, but I think this is utterly despicable. Tweeted and Facebooked the linky to help spread that EA love...

Well there have to be some of us around to fly the flag of logic when the rest of you are busy slinging your shit around with typical 'lol EA is the devilz' posts.

OT: From what I understand from the replies this was predictably blown out of proportion, but I'm sure I remember someone mentioning in a Sim City thread that it's written into EA's T&C's that if you ask for a refund you can be banned.

I dunno if he was kidding, but the rest of his post seemed serious enough.

 

[Agent Cross]

I can just hear the Consumerist's polls.

"We're sure that British Petroleum, AIG, Philip Morris, and Halliburton are all relieved they weren't nominated this year. We're going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide." - EA Rep, April 2012. After being voted "Worst Company In America"

Somebody's going for a repeat

 

[Comocat]

Wow, isn't it a bit early for refunds in the first place?

To answer my own question, yes, yes it is too early. The vast majority of time, online games aren't going to work exactly right on release, it really is an unavoidable fact. A company can plan for ever contingency, but then things can happen out of the blue, even things that tests upon tests say will never happen.

EA were always up front about the fact the game was going to need an always on connection and that some of the game was going to be controlled via the servers.

Seriously, consumer rule number one for such a game is to not expect the launch to go smoothly.

Also, as people have been pointing out about the charge backs, with that EA has a very valid reason for such cowardice when dealing with a problem.

People need to take their refund request to EA first.

Of course, after giving them time to regroup the system to accommodate the actual amount of people lining up to play and address the problems caused by the influx of so many people.

The SimCity released like two days ago. Two days is not a viable maintenance and repair window. I would give them a couple weeks at the least, month at the most.

I whole heartedly disagree. The product does not work. The buyer didn't pay to have 'a product that would work at some point in the future'. I'm willing bet that no where prior to buying it was it visible to the consumer that EA claimed 'the game will not work for the first few days upon release'. If they had openly said that at some point (or course they wouldn't, but hypothetically), I might see the other side.

It's not an excuse to say that it's happened to every other online game ever; reasonable to expect yes, acceptable no: they sold the game under the agreement that by giving EA money, the purchaser could play this game. The purchaser gave them money, EA isn't providing them the ability to play that game.
Sounds like a defective product to me

But we know the game isn't going to work. I'm constantly shocked at all the outrage when people are surprised at day one disruptions. I'm actually kind of pissed off- at gamers- because this is why customer support is so hard to get. Rather than dealing with real issues, some ass clown who couldn't pass a marshmallow test to save their life, is hassling some rep because they cant wait a couple days on a game everyone and their mom knew wouldn't work on day 1. Personally anyone asking for refunds because they cant log in day 1 should be banned from any online game for life for being a waste of time and space. Always online = Weeks of disruptions deal with it or don't buy the game.

 

[bfgmetalhead]

People are afraid of EA banning their account? What are they going to do? Lock us out of Origin that basically no one likes? I haven't bought a game from EA in the last three or four years and I can't be alone on that one. Not to mention anyone they ban from their system is now a paying customer of steam (if they weren't already).

No you are not, EA boycott fist-bump. Still I don't care if the customer acted questionably, EA does that all the time like a boss so giving some back is fair game in my book.

 

[Silvianoshei]

It's not an excuse to say that it's happened to every other online game ever; reasonable to expect yes, acceptable no: they sold the game under the agreement that by giving EA money, the purchaser could play this game. The purchaser gave them money, EA isn't providing them the ability to play that game.
Sounds like a defective product to me

But we know the game isn't going to work. I'm constantly shocked at all the outrage when people are surprised at day one disruptions. I'm actually kind of pissed off- at gamers- because this is why customer support is so hard to get. Rather than dealing with real issues, some ass clown who couldn't pass a marshmallow test to save their life, is hassling some rep because they cant wait a couple days on a game everyone and their mom knew wouldn't work on day 1. Personally anyone asking for refunds because they cant log in day 1 should be banned from any online game for life for being a waste of time and space. Always online = Weeks of disruptions deal with it or don't buy the game.

Why exactly is it wrong to expect a refund for failing to receive a service that you have a contract for? If publishers want to move toward a service-based model, then I'm going to treat them like contractors. I paid for a service, and I didn't get it when I was told I'd get it. That means I should get a refund. Whatever the "expectation" was is utterly immaterial.

 

[TheDoctor455]

I'm pretty sure this sort of thing is illegal.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Wow, isn't it a bit early for refunds in the first place?

To answer my own question, yes, yes it is too early. The vast majority of time, online games aren't going to work exactly right on release, it really is an unavoidable fact. A company can plan for ever contingency, but then things can happen out of the blue, even things that tests upon tests say will never happen.

EA were always up front about the fact the game was going to need an always on connection and that some of the game was going to be controlled via the servers.

Seriously, consumer rule number one for such a game is to not expect the launch to go smoothly.

Also, as people have been pointing out about the charge backs, with that EA has a very valid reason for such cowardice when dealing with a problem.

People need to take their refund request to EA first.

Of course, after giving them time to regroup the system to accommodate the actual amount of people lining up to play and address the problems caused by the influx of so many people.

The SimCity released like two days ago. Two days is not a viable maintenance and repair window. I would give them a couple weeks at the least, month at the most.

I've been playing online games since UO.

I've dealt with crippling lag, server roll backs, and server outages. I dealt with WoW's loot lag, I dealt with TOR's stupid staggered launch, I dealt with AoC barely working out of the box and I dealt with Diablo 3's infamous error 37. I put up with constant disconnects and sharding fiascos for the first week of GW2. I've endured giant queues. I've had charging errors.

Simcity has had, without question, the worst first 48 hours of any game I've ever purchased. From queues that aren't actually queues, to entreaties to play on other servers that also do not work, to random disconnects, to servers perpetually being busy, to servers SHOWING as busy when they're actually down, to rollbacks that don't work and corrupt and destroy your cities, to regions corrupting and freezing, to friends lists not working, or working fitfully, to EA either not communicating or communicating incorrect information...it goes on and on and on.

Even if you're willing to view the game as a multiplayer title...which I am...and which many are understandably reluctant to do...no, it is not "too early". This is not an understandable or defensible level of launch week hijinks. This is ineptitude of legendary proportions. They launched a game that was not ready for prime time with a laughably insufficient level of server architecture in place to meet demand, almost certainly as a cost saving measure. They are now getting pounded for it, in the media and in the court of public opinion, and rightly so. This isn't about the game. This is about the online service they sold people bundled with the game. The game is buggy, but good. The service is appalling, and broken, and their clown shoe attempts at fixing it have so far managed to make it worse.

Frankly, they should be OFFERING refunds, publicly. They should have their hat in their fucking hands. I don't want a refund, I just want to play the game. But anyone else who wants one is entitled to it. You want people to buy your always online game, you keep that fucking thing online more than 10% of the time.

 

[Elijin]

Actual topic:

Ea informs user that if they proceed to issue a chargeback, as indicated by the user, that their account will be locked.



Because god forbid a business lock your account until a chargeback is resolved one way or the other (License removed and refund issued OR chargeback cancelled and lock removed), right guys?


I mean cmon. Those reps would be running on instructions to inform users their accounts will be banned for initiating a chargeback. Thats just how online retailers protect themselves. I've been there. Part of a small gaming community where we sell services. People accept the services, then initiate chargebacks on us, which leaves us having the onus of resolving the charge, as well as paypal marking against us due to the accusation of failure to provide the service. Its creates a huge process for us to prove its a false chargeback, and in the interim, we lose money.

All while the user has the thing they paid for.

Long story short = People on the internet are notoriously unscrupulous, with the assholes ruining it for everyone else. As such, "chargeback" is a dirty word to any online business.

 

[LordLundar]

I said in this thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.381769-Another-EA-horror-story#15048073] that I wasn't sympathetic to the user being banned for the threat of the charge back. I'm still not. That incident was clearly a screw up on the poster's end and trying to blame EA.

This however, is a perfect case of the example I gave. Almost piece for piece. I'm not even opposed to the concept of the charge back complaint because the service clearly isn't working.

 

[MoltenSilver]

Wow, isn't it a bit early for refunds in the first place?

To answer my own question, yes, yes it is too early. The vast majority of time, online games aren't going to work exactly right on release, it really is an unavoidable fact. A company can plan for ever contingency, but then things can happen out of the blue, even things that tests upon tests say will never happen.

EA were always up front about the fact the game was going to need an always on connection and that some of the game was going to be controlled via the servers.

Seriously, consumer rule number one for such a game is to not expect the launch to go smoothly.

Also, as people have been pointing out about the charge backs, with that EA has a very valid reason for such cowardice when dealing with a problem.

People need to take their refund request to EA first.

Of course, after giving them time to regroup the system to accommodate the actual amount of people lining up to play and address the problems caused by the influx of so many people.

The SimCity released like two days ago. Two days is not a viable maintenance and repair window. I would give them a couple weeks at the least, month at the most.

I whole heartedly disagree. The product does not work. The buyer didn't pay to have 'a product that would work at some point in the future'. I'm willing bet that no where prior to buying it was it visible to the consumer that EA claimed 'the game will not work for the first few days upon release'. If they had openly said that at some point (or course they wouldn't, but hypothetically), I might see the other side.

It's not an excuse to say that it's happened to every other online game ever; reasonable to expect yes, acceptable no: they sold the game under the agreement that by giving EA money, the purchaser could play this game. The purchaser gave them money, EA isn't providing them the ability to play that game.
Sounds like a defective product to me

But we know the game isn't going to work. I'm constantly shocked at all the outrage when people are surprised at day one disruptions. I'm actually kind of pissed off- at gamers- because this is why customer support is so hard to get. Rather than dealing with real issues, some ass clown who couldn't pass a marshmallow test to save their life, is hassling some rep because they cant wait a couple days on a game everyone and their mom knew wouldn't work on day 1. Personally anyone asking for refunds because they cant log in day 1 should be banned from any online game for life for being a waste of time and space. Always online = Weeks of disruptions deal with it or don't buy the game.

Do we? sure the 'we' meaning the Escapist community probably knew this was going to happen, but what about others? Casual gamer who hasn't played an always-online game before? Children &the parents who buy the game with no experience with always-online and its launch reputation? They entirely believed, and were led to believe, that buying this game meant they could play this game right when they bought it. Do they deserve a refund then? And if they do, why don't all consumers of that product? This is exactly why, as has been said by me and Silvianoshie, expectation based on past/other products is utterly irrelevant to what consumers have the right to expect from this game.

Always online = Weeks of disruptions deal with it or don't buy the game.

'Not buying online games' being a policy I fully intend to keep for exactly these reasons, but just because I'm knowledgeable enough to know what happens with online-game-launches and have made that decision for myself with that information, it still doesn't mean the consumers of this product don't have grounds to ask for a refund on the basis of the product being defective

 

[Church185]

Actual topic:

Ea informs user that if they proceed to issue a chargeback, as indicated by the user, that their account will be locked.



Because god forbid a business lock your account until a chargeback is resolved one way or the other (License removed and refund issued OR chargeback cancelled and lock removed), right guys?


I mean cmon. Those reps would be running on instructions to inform users their accounts will be banned for initiating a chargeback. Thats just how online retailers protect themselves. I've been there. Part of a small gaming community where we sell services. People accept the services, then initiate chargebacks on us, which leaves us having the onus of resolving the charge, as well as paypal marking against us due to the accusation of failure to provide the service. Its creates a huge process for us to prove its a false chargeback, and in the interim, we lose money.

All while the user has the thing they paid for.

Long story short = People on the internet are notoriously unscrupulous, with the assholes ruining it for everyone else. As such, "chargeback" is a dirty word to any online business.

Ah, but if the EA employee had simply just issued the refund, the customer wouldn't have to have threatened to get his bank involved. I understand that people can be dicks sometimes, but this guy appears to have tried to use the appropriate channels first, then found no other way to get his money back for a faulty product. The game in question is online only, so if a refund had been given or he issued a chargeback claim, his access to said product would have been revoked. He isn't trying to scam anyone.

 

[rednose1]

Meh, not terribly surprised by any of this. EA has grown to the point where they can run roughshod over customers, and they'll still make $$$. Being happy with the company while you buy their games, or insulting them while you buy their games, EA wins either way.

 

[waj9876]

> Misleading title with link to misleading story.
> People hate on [Company].
> A few people point out what's actually going on. Ignored.
> Hate of [Company] continues, with no one actually reading any of the comments.

Stay classy escapist.

 

[Elijin]

Actual topic:

Ea informs user that if they proceed to issue a chargeback, as indicated by the user, that their account will be locked.



Because god forbid a business lock your account until a chargeback is resolved one way or the other (License removed and refund issued OR chargeback cancelled and lock removed), right guys?


I mean cmon. Those reps would be running on instructions to inform users their accounts will be banned for initiating a chargeback. Thats just how online retailers protect themselves. I've been there. Part of a small gaming community where we sell services. People accept the services, then initiate chargebacks on us, which leaves us having the onus of resolving the charge, as well as paypal marking against us due to the accusation of failure to provide the service. Its creates a huge process for us to prove its a false chargeback, and in the interim, we lose money.

All while the user has the thing they paid for.

Long story short = People on the internet are notoriously unscrupulous, with the assholes ruining it for everyone else. As such, "chargeback" is a dirty word to any online business.

Ah, but if the EA employee had simply just issued the refund, the customer wouldn't have to have threatened to get his bank involved. I understand that people can be dicks sometimes, but this guy appears to have tried to use the appropriate channels first, then found no other way to get his money back for a faulty product. The game in question is online only, so if a refund had been given or he issued a chargeback claim, his access to said product would have been revoked. He isn't trying to scam anyone.

The EA rep should have issued the refund yes. That comes down to 'Some of those guys are just clueless'. I've used Origin support myself and have had a few times where after being told what I was asking is not going to happen, I roll my eyes, close the support ticket, and open a new one. The next rep let me have my reasonable request.

But the point of my original post was that the rep was doing a knee jerk response to the word chargeback, not threatening to ban the user for asking for a refund, as seems to be the popular opinion here.

 

[Agayek]

This is the first I've heard of it being either, but I assumed it was this. It doesn't make sense in context as a slur.

I agree WRT the context and everything here.

What people are getting annoyed by though is that "gook" is a slur for the Vietnamese that American armed forces came up with during 'nam. On this side of the pond, it's become a general-purpose slur for asians, in a similar vein as "******" for black folks or "cracker" for white folks, though in terms of offensiveness it's closer to the latter, simply because it doesn't have the history of the former.