EA Bans Users for Asking for Refunds

[Rachmaninov]

I'm not sure if banning people for chargebacks is a bad return policy or not.

Well, the way I look at it is this:

If someone buys a game with an online component, say for example Diablo 3, and they (for whatever reason) use a chargeback to get a refund for the game, I think it would be fair for Blizzard to ban you from Diablo 3. After all, if you bought Diablo 3, and felt so appalled that you had to request a chargeback, you clearly didn't want the product after all. And I'd even agree on Blizzard refusing to sell anything else to this person.

If someone buys a game from a digital distribution platform, and feels (again, for whatever reason) the need to use a chargeback, it would not be fair to then deny them access to the rest of the games they've already paid for.

And it doesn't even make sense business-wise. If I used a chargeback for a refund of a Steam game, and permanently lost my access to my extensive Steam library, I'd be after Valve for compensation for all of those games, instead of just the one. At the very least, I'd be a bigger headache, and at most, they'd end up paying me for over a hundred games instead of one.

He was threatened with a ban *if* he filed a chargeback. This is something the TOS *already* warns you will happen, and is common practice with *ALL* online retailers, including even Steam.

Actually, Steam don't.

inb4 people claiming "Steam doesn't do it!" as being a standard response.

A "standard response" doesn't change the fact that it's true. Maybe that's why it's a standard response in the first place.

Steam is being nice, a lot nicer than they need to be.

Not really, since digital distribution is one massive grey area legally. Steam may be being nicer than the competition, but that could well be out of concern that - as the most successful DD service - that they'd be at risk of legal action, for banning people from using things they've already purchased.

Even if the TOS says certain behaviour will get you banned, no company TOS can ever override the law. The law generally says that when you purchase something, you own it. Digital distribution companies would have a hard time passing their service off as a rental service, in court, because they charge exactly the same price as retailers who actually sell you a physical copy.

Kinda sad how badly people want to hate EA that they'll drum up any excuse they can, and watch the masses swarm to it like it reinforces their opinion about the company.

It's kinda sad that EA continues to rub so many people the wrong way that they feel that need in the first place.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122565-EA-Wont-Ban-Origin-Accounts-For-Demanding-SimCity-Refunds

That seems kind of final, and once again calls into question the legitimacy of the original claim.

That's interesting. That does suggest that the original claim here is a fake. Although if it has pointed out a bad part of EA's returns policy, it still serves its intended purpose, I think.

Harsh? possibly. Unfair? Not really. Chargebacks exist for when a customer has had their credit card info stolen and used to buy things. Or if the company they dealt with has DEFRAUDED them. Not getting a refund is not fraud. People can argue the semantics on if EA delivered what the customer agreed to buy all they want, that is still not fraud.

With this being a legal grey area, chargebacks do get used for something other than their intended purpose, but what other recourse does the user have?

They buy a product, and the product isn't usable. In the rest of the retail world, that would give you the right to a refund. But digital distribution services don't give refunds.

So are customers supposed to buy products, and when they don't work, just put up with it? What's stopping someone establishing a DD service, and selling deliberately faulty products, and then just keeping the money, then? Because the only difference between that example, and this example, is that we assume EA want to make the product work. And assumptions have no place in law.

Chargebacks are no joke and companies are within their right to sever and and all business relationships with someone who issue one against them falsely. As a matter of fact, the credit card companies ENCOURAGE them to do it to lower the likely hood of it happening again by that customer.

Severing business relationships are one thing.

Denying you access to all of the products you'd already bought from them is another.

 

[Baldr]

http://i.imgur.com/VEJIVmk.jpg

Ok apparently this guy got a refund with little to no fuss so...what the fuck is going on.

What do you think of Origin & EA?
Answer should be gooks.

Regardless of him being an asshole I still laughed. EA have been acting like assholes to their customers a lot lately. I don't see the issue people have with giving them a little back.

because the little guy you deal with doesn't make these policies, he's just a front of house work a day dude trying to pay his bills like the rest of us and the last thing he needs is a load of abuse from a self entitled customer when all it takes is simply and politely explaining the situation.
Ever wonder what causes bad customer service? It's dealing with people like that for five hours that makes you wanna dick over everyone. Anyone who's worked in customer service knows exactly that.

Bad Customer Service is caused by bad corporate policies and bad treatment of employees by management. My day job is customer service, I got a company that pays me well and makes sure I have the tools to deal with every problem without so much as a hiccup. In the entire 6 months I've worked here, there has only been one complaint against our division.

 

[Bostur]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122565-EA-Wont-Ban-Origin-Accounts-For-Demanding-SimCity-Refunds

That seems kind of final, and once again calls into question the legitimacy of the original claim.

That's interesting. That does suggest that the original claim here is a fake. Although if it has pointed out a bad part of EA's returns policy, it still serves its intended purpose, I think.

I think it suggests that the OP's interpretation of the log is exaggerated, but that the log is genuine. So as you say it still serves it purpose.

EA actually confirms the events with their comment.

 

[Dendio]

EA released a statement that they are not banning for requesting a refund.

 

[Rachmaninov]

I think it suggests that the OP's interpretation of the log is exaggerated, but that the log is genuine. So as you say it still serves it purpose.

EA actually confirms the events with their comment.

Well that report doesn't mention that they don't ban people for chargebacks, it just mentions that they don't ban people for asking for refunds, and the original log doesn't contradict that.

Only the OP's interpretation does. So I think you might be right in fact.

And EA's responding to it does lend it some credibility, although it could be that it was causing enough damage that it had to be responded to even if it was a lie, and without them saying "Oh that's just a lie" which would actually magnify the damage to their PR, instead of controlling it.

 

[Sansha]

I don't understand why people are still surprised at EA's business practices, and why they get fucked over whenever they buy their products.

I really want to play some of EA's products - BF3, SimCity etc, but I simply won't. I refuse to associate with the company, and I don't know why others still do, given their appalling practices.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

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.

Yeah consumer rights, yada yada yada...

Consumer rights mean nothing if people aren't using consumer smarts, really, consumer common sense at this point.

Consumer rights doesn't give a person the ability to be oblivious when purchasing things. It is being downright stupid to just take everything on faith because, "stuff shouldn't/can't be released if it isn't perfect".

A good consumer does research on the product. If they have past experience, they use that experience to tell them what to expect from such a product, normal or expected cons.

Example this is how I viewed the game and situation for possible future purchase [which I will once I get the right PC. My internet is perfect so I don't have to worry about always online] :

EA said outright that the game would be an always online product, that single player is there, but the game has been shifted to a multiplayer for proper experience.

With the game economy and how many people can share parts of the game, it is basically a SimCity MMO.

From my past experience, MMO and other online games, never have perfect launches, and I don't expect them ever to[it comes with the territory].

So in that scenario, as a customer, I did my research and I know what is par for the course with such a product. So, if something bad or a bit worse happens, I know not to worry, that I will get to play the game soon.

Consumer rights aren't the be all and end all. The customer is always right, isn't a real thing.

As far as I'm concerned, oblivious customers lose the vast majority of their rights if they aren't paying attention to the info right in front of them that has been given to tell them what they are buying and what to expect.

It is why smokers can't sue tobacco companies anymore if they get cancer, companies no have label, and the research is available.

(Edit: finger slipped and accidentally hit post.)

It is common knowledge these days that online games are never perfect on launch. EA explained what they were making and what people were buying.

With all the information available, if people then ended up still purchasing the game with expectations of perfection, I say to them, "To bad, you don't deserve a refund".

At this point, I think EA needs to just put up a sign on their sites and in front of their offices, "No refunds, no exceptions".

 

[Rachmaninov]

At this point, I think EA needs to just put up a sign on their sites and in front of their offices, "No refunds, no exceptions".

I actually agree with you on most of your points. People should research these things, and it's not really EA's fault they didn't.

But the fact is, at least in the UK, companies are legally obliged to give a refund on software if it is faulty. There's no two ways about that, there's no "but it's in our TOS!" or similar statement which will ever change the law. And the law is that faulty software has to be met with a refund.

I'd say that if you buy a game, and you can't play it, it's faulty.

 

[Aeonknight]

At this point, I think EA needs to just put up a sign on their sites and in front of their offices, "No refunds, no exceptions".

I actually agree with you on most of your points. People should research these things, and it's not really EA's fault they didn't.

But the fact is, at least in the UK, companies are legally obliged to give a refund on software if it is faulty. There's no two ways about that, there's no "but it's in our TOS!" or similar statement which will ever change the law. And the law is that faulty software has to be met with a refund.

I'd say that if you buy a game, and you can't play it, it's faulty.

Depends where the fault is. Is it the companies' fault your graphics card isn't compatible with the game? Not really. System requirements come with every PC game I've ever seen/bought. Says it right on the box.

Now if it was an instance where let's say it's like Skyrim was at launch, that's a different story. That is fundamentally broken.

 

[Sargonas42]

Consumer rights mean nothing if people aren't using consumer smarts, really, consumer common sense at this point.

Consumer rights doesn't give a person the ability to be oblivious when purchasing things. It is being downright stupid to just take everything on faith because, "stuff shouldn't/can't be released if it isn't perfect".

A good consumer does research on the product. If they have past experience, they use that experience to tell them what to expect from such a product, normal or expected cons.

Example this is how I viewed the game and situation for possible future purchase [which I will once I get the right PC. My internet is perfect so I don't have to worry about always online] :

EA said outright that the game would be an always online product, that single player is there, but the game has been shifted to a multiplayer for proper experience.

With the game economy and how many people can share parts of the game, it is basically a SimCity MMO.

From my past experience, MMO and other online games, never have perfect launches, and I don't expect them ever to[it comes with the territory].

So in that scenario, as a customer, I did my research and I know what is par for the course with such a product. So, if something bad or a bit worse happens, I know not to worry, that I will get to play the game soon.

Consumer rights aren't the be all and end all. The customer is always right, isn't a real thing.

As far as I'm concerned, oblivious customers lose the vast majority of their rights if they aren't paying attention to the info right in front of them that has been given to tell them what they are buying and what to expect.

It is why smokers can't sue tobacco companies anymore if they get cancer, companies no have label, and the research is available.

It is common knowledge these days that online games are never perfect on launch. EA explained what they were making and what people were buying.

With all the information available, if people then ended up still purchasing the game with expectations of perfection, I say to them, "To bad, you don't deserve a refund".

This is probably the best worded and most clearly explained position on this topic I have ever seen. If I could give you karma for this I would. I'll probably be often citing this post in the future.

 

[The Lugz]

If you read it, they're only banning people who try to get charges reversed at their bank, which is common practice.

Yeah I noticed that too. Even Valve will ban you with no recourse for charge-backs.

This, chargebacks are generally big problems for companies because you have accused them of not providing the product.

A chargeback is an extreme option and using it when you have recieved the product is illegal. Typically it is when you pay for something by credit card and the business goes busto without giving you the product.

exactly, this is illegal and you could actually be charged with fraud in some places!
my bank won't allow a charge back unless you fill out the appropriate forms,
which prevents people getting in trouble over this

ea is actually following good business practice on this one, .. did i just say that? 'sticks fingers in plug'

 

[BloatedGuppy]

With all the information available, if people then ended up still purchasing the game with expectations of perfection, I say to them, "To bad, you don't deserve a refund".

At this point, I think EA needs to just put up a sign on their sites and in front of their offices, "No refunds, no exceptions".

Unbelievable.

You think the issue here is that PERFECTION was expected, and not delivered, do you?

That takes some gall. I applaud you for testicular fortitude.

This is probably the best worded and most clearly explained position on this topic I have ever seen. If I could give you karma for this I would. I'll probably be often citing this post in the future.

You do that. It's a heap of nonsense.

There's a country mile between "perfection" and "remotely functional". If you think the state of the game right now is acceptable for an online product at launch, then you might as well be an alien selling me moon rocks, because we do not inhabit the same reality.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/07/simcity-vs-the-people-why-apologies-arent-enough/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2013/03/07/amazon-pulls-digital-edition-of-simcity-as-ea-struggles-to-fix-servers/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57573053-1/simcity-launch-a-complete-disaster/
http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/07/we-built-this-simcity-on-a-shaky-foundation-of-drm/

You can wax poetic and pontificate on consumer awareness and the legitimacy of always online all you want. If you ship a product and sell it to consumers, you have an obligation to meet certain minimal quality standards. The situation with this game is WAY past the point of acceptable/understandable start up issues.

 

[VoidWanderer]

I wonder if EA and the guys that 'came up' with WarZ have lunch meetings to discuss 'business strategies'..

 

[Rachmaninov]

Depends where the fault is. Is it the companies' fault your graphics card isn't compatible with the game? Not really. System requirements come with every PC game I've ever seen/bought. Says it right on the box.

Now if it was an instance where let's say it's like Skyrim was at launch, that's a different story. That is fundamentally broken.

Since we're talking about EA, and most specifically, SimCity, I think that would be the best subject to analyze.

And there, the fault is not with the customer. It's not the customers fault they bought a game and can't play it. That fault lies with EA.

Under examples like this, people will so often preach patience, but that argument is incredibly flawed. Only in the gaming industry would people buy a product, find out they can't use it unless they wait a week for the issues to stabilize, and then get bitched at for complaining about it.

I'm sure if I was selling people computers, which wouldn't work at all, until they'd been in place in your house for a week, I'd go out of business before I could even finish writing a returns policy, let alone before I tried to bash customers over the head with it.

And EA has the weakest excuse of all. They pay to turn a single player franchise multiplayer just so they can crowbar in always-online DRM and microtransactions, and then refuse to pay for sufficient server space to handle the volume of customers.

If anyone is unable to log in to SimCity because of EA's server issues, that's EA's fault and EA is legally obliged to give a refund to anyone who asks.

I wonder if EA and the guys that 'came up' with WarZ have lunch meetings to discuss 'business strategies'..

Nah, the guys that dreamed up WarZ are much too subtle for EA. EA like their evil with red skin, horns, goat hooves and a forked tongue, sitting on a throne made of money stuck together will viscera.

 

[Madgamer13]

I am more concerned about the title of this topic, while I certainly do not mean to offend the original poster, but the evidence linked appears bias to me and only suggests threatening of a ban, not an actual ban. So far, I havn't seen any evidence that states that EA has actually been banning people for asking for refunds.

But that doesn't matter, we're all too busy bashing EA and putting the world to rights by disussing important issues like consumer rights while atop our soapboxes.

 

[TheRaider]

Depends where the fault is. Is it the companies' fault your graphics card isn't compatible with the game? Not really. System requirements come with every PC game I've ever seen/bought. Says it right on the box.

Now if it was an instance where let's say it's like Skyrim was at launch, that's a different story. That is fundamentally broken.

Since we're talking about EA, and most specifically, SimCity, I think that would be the best subject to analyze.

And there, the fault is not with the customer. It's not the customers fault they bought a game and can't play it. That fault lies with EA.

Under examples like this, people will so often preach patience, but that argument is incredibly flawed. Only in the gaming industry would people buy a product, find out they can't use it unless they wait a week for the issues to stabilize, and then get bitched at for complaining about it.

I'm sure if I was selling people computers, which wouldn't work at all, until they'd been in place in your house for a week, I'd go out of business before I could even finish writing a returns policy, let alone before I tried to bash customers over the head with it.

And EA has the weakest excuse of all. They pay to turn a single player franchise multiplayer just so they can crowbar in always-online DRM and microtransactions, and then refuse to pay for sufficient server space to handle the volume of customers.

If anyone is unable to log in to SimCity because of EA's server issues, that's EA's fault and EA is legally obliged to give a refund to anyone who asks.

I wonder if EA and the guys that 'came up' with WarZ have lunch meetings to discuss 'business strategies'..

Nah, the guys that dreamed up WarZ are much too subtle for EA. EA like their evil with red skin, horns, goat hooves and a forked tongue, sitting on a throne made of money stuck together will viscera.

Apple iPhone grip of death?

 

[Cpt. Lozan]

Yiiiiiiiikes.
That's pretty drastic there E.A.
Even for you guys.

I mean even if let's say the users were in the right to ask for a refund....BANNING their ACCOUNT..for asking?
Makes you look a bit suspicious.

This is the same company who denied someone the right to play a game they bought because they said that "[bioware] had sould their souls to the EA devil"

I don't think this is that big of a step for them.

 

[Orthus]

At this point, I think EA needs to just put up a sign on their sites and in front of their offices, "No refunds, no exceptions".

So lets give EA a free pass on releasing broken games, just so they don't have to give out refunds for simcity?

I think refunds should be a case by case basis. I think those who haven't downloaded a game should be able to get a refund. this would mean that they have to track game downloads, but it does offer a way for consumers to get refunds in the digital age.

 

[Basement Cat]

Gooks isn't a racial slur in Australia. It's just a kind of general word we use to describe stupid people here or people that are being a jackass. It's not even considered a swear word around here, to be honest.

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.

Don't worry about it. This is just a case of different cultural meanings for identical words.

FYI in the USA "gook" is a pejorative term that was used by American soldiers fighting in Vietnam to refer to the Vietnamese and Cambodians. It later became a generic racial slur used in reference to Asians in general.

I'm reminded of how the word "Bloody" was as vulgar a term for the British in the 19th and early 20th centuries as it gets, but to me and my fellow Americans it's barely a cuss word. Most wouldn't even consider it a cuss word.

Cultural semantic differences.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Yeah consumer rights, yada yada yada...

Consumer rights mean nothing if people aren't using consumer smarts, really, consumer common sense at this point.

Consumer rights doesn't give a person the ability to be oblivious when purchasing things. It is being downright stupid to just take everything on faith because, "stuff shouldn't/can't be released if it isn't perfect".

A good consumer does research on the product. If they have past experience, they use that experience to tell them what to expect from such a product, normal or expected cons.

Example this is how I viewed the game and situation for possible future purchase [which I will once I get the right PC. My internet is perfect so I don't have to worry about always online] :

EA said outright that the game would be an always online product, that single player is there, but the game has been shifted to a multiplayer for proper experience.

With the game economy and how many people can share parts of the game, it is basically a SimCity MMO.

From my past experience, MMO and other online games, never have perfect launches, and I don't expect them ever to[it comes with the territory].

So in that scenario, as a customer, I did my research and I know what is par for the course with such a product. So, if something bad or a bit worse happens, I know not to worry, that I will get to play the game soon.

Consumer rights aren't the be all and end all. The customer is always right, isn't a real thing.

As far as I'm concerned, oblivious customers lose the vast majority of their rights if they aren't paying attention to the info right in front of them that has been given to tell them what they are buying and what to expect.

It is why smokers can't sue tobacco companies anymore if they get cancer, companies no have label, and the research is available.

(Edit: finger slipped and accidentally hit post.)

It is common knowledge these days that online games are never perfect on launch. EA explained what they were making and what people were buying.

With all the information available, if people then ended up still purchasing the game with expectations of perfection, I say to them, "To bad, you don't deserve a refund".

At this point, I think EA needs to just put up a sign on their sites and in front of their offices, "No refunds, no exceptions".

I'm going to school to be an engineer. I'm not genius smart, but I'm not dumb. I read things I'm presented with. If I don't agree, like the EULA of Origin and that whole mess, I don't agree. My voice isn't important, but it does what it does for me.

Consumer rights and Consumer personal responsibility does not erode one or the other. Do companies hire lawyers to make the language in their EULA as common sense as possible? Do they hire the lawyers to make sure each party gets their fair share? No. They hire these guys to obtain as much as power as possible.

Now yeah, it's a great time to say 'Well, Consumer Responsibility'. I bring up the engineer thing for a few reasons. One, I'm obviously of the age where I can research things myself, but not everyone who was bought this game are. That's even middle of the road because those people who are buying it should probably read them, but those out of touch do not realize how badly we are consumers of games are getting screwed. But it does bring up another point: not everyone who plays games are as smart as to realize exactly what they are agreeing with.

I'm not saying because someone is stupid enough to buy something without reading, they should get a refund. But if Companies specifically muddy the language in EULA that maybe someone of average intelligence needs to get a dictionary or ask for help several times, it's probably not worded in his or her best interests.

Personally, I am wary when I see EULA, and they are popping up all over the place. I can't bring a lawyer to the table and counteroffer. It's always their way or nothing. It's a trend in gaming and a lot of digital media that is very unsettling, and I do like seeing 'Consumer's Rights' being dragged out of the closet with the dust wiped off of it. Maybe we'll get it right in the future, but if we just let it go by the way side it's just a down hill from here.