What is this??? Cmon...

[DeletedUser80720]

Exactly. This was insulting at best.

well he did say to us that it will now cause minimal damage kinda not though since 1000 to 20 is a big difference xD

 

[DeletedUser122349]

Hey guys, please note that the compensation of 30% is granted to all users (that did not have it before) and will be running for 48h.
We understand that this will not completely undo the damage or unbalance, but we do hope to make it as minimal as possible.

I am with cornish on this one. The people who get the advantage of having purchased the bundles can choose when they use their items.

Plus the 30% does little to counter the advantage they have. They may have attack and defense boosts which gives their army an advantage over others which didn't get the choice of purchasing the product. Add to that the growth they will get from instant coins and nobles.

I think what it all comes down to for me is that I want to compete against others on a level playing field. When some people got to choose to buy these packages and others were refused the same opportunity it created an uneven playing field which just feels plain wrong to me.

 

[blckdrgn1]

JawJaw thank you for your efforts to fix the issue. Unfortunately the only fix that would've solved this completely was a server roll back and refund, giving out any more bonuses will only add to the damage. Please just leave it as is.

 

[DeletedUser97716]

Is this really what Inno is compensating us with? LOL this is just straight pathetic.

 

[DeletedUser103748]

Is this really what Inno is compensating us with? LOL this is just straight pathetic.

TW Management: "Ok, we've found a solution. Here's a tiny, insignificant boost for everyone. Also, we're offering premium points at a discount for anyone stupid enough to give us more money after we just clearly demonstrated our lack of competence and our complete disregard for doing anything to maintain an actual even playing field on w100 as we previously promised.

Problem solved, give us more money."

 

[PatriotStomp]

What a stab to the back of all loyal tw players. I will not be playing anymore tw worlds or any inno game ever again.

 

[dzippe]

What a stab to the back of all loyal tw players. I will not be playing anymore tw worlds or any inno game ever again.

Same here.
If they promise us another non p2w world the same mistake will be make.
Just for money. Ppl stopped to use PP on w101 and 102 and the mistake happened .

 

[Mithrae]

JawJaw thank you for your efforts to fix the issue. Unfortunately the only fix that would've solved this completely was a server roll back and refund, giving out any more bonuses will only add to the damage. Please just leave it as is.

Aha! Spoken like someone who's been out there gallivanting around with their fancy new bonus packs

 

[DeletedUser120518]

Hey guys, please note that the compensation of 30% is granted to all users (that did not have it before) and will be running for 48h.
We understand that this will not completely undo the damage or unbalance, but we do hope to make it as minimal as possible.

Unless the buff stacks/extends with the one used by people who got them in the packages they bought you're not allowed from a legal standpoint to alienate paying users from a worldwide gift for the sole reason of them already buying the gift.

Also from a legal standpoint, you're not allowed to withhold certain premium offers which are offered to all accounts active on a world with all premium features enabled when this is added to the weekly update, especially when users ask for these when they're excluded from them on a certain world due to technical difficulties.

 

[Mithrae]

...from a legal standpoint . . . .

Also from a legal standpoint . . . .

Senior's discounts, ladies nights, limited edition and exclusive offers are all illegal. In all countries. Who knew?

We all enjoy being internet lawyers at times, but I can one-up you as an internet judge, and it is the opinion of this court that in general businesses are not forced by law to offer any particular product or service to any particular person. Until money changes hands or an agreement is signed, they're free to make offers as broadly or selectively as they please and withdraw them at any time, in general. There may be exceptions where there are concerns around issues like racial discrimination, but even then I've heard that (*ahem* I mean that my ruling on) the recent US Supreme Court decision leans against the broadest interpretation of public accommodation obligations.



I'm fairly well convinced that this 'mistake' was a calculated money grab - in part by this pitiful excuse for a 'solution' - but I'm pretty sure that ultimately our options are to either take our business elsewhere or simply man up, turn around and bite the pillow.

 

[DeletedUser120518]

Senior's discounts, ladies nights, limited edition and exclusive offers are all illegal. In all countries. Who knew?

Actually, this does in fact break a number of state laws and there have been cases where companies have been successfully sued for things like discounts for woman etc.

So there's you answer, i knew.

Limited editions are open to everyone until stock runs out so that's a whole different story.

Also with the 2006 AGG a case could be made for this particular thing but idk if i want to spend my summer break reading up on the specific subject, i've spent more than enough time on stuff like this in uni.

 

[DeletedUser103759]

oh well

 

[DeletedUser122349]

I'm fairly well convinced that this 'mistake' was a calculated money grab - in part by this pitiful excuse for a 'solution' - but I'm pretty sure that ultimately our options are to either take our business elsewhere or simply man up, turn around and bite the pillow.

While this whole disaster leaves me with disappointment that a 'mistake' on their part has affected a large percentage of their player base and I am considering making any worlds I am playing on the last still I doubt that this was a money grab by inno. If it truly were a money grab I am sure they would have found an excuse to leave the packages up for their entire intended duration so that vastly more people would have purchased the products or as a solution they would have said the only 'fair' way to deal with the issue is to allow everyone the opportunity to purchase the same products.

I do believe JawJaw told us the truth that this was a monumental stuff up but it is one that has created an unfair disadvantage for those who purchased these packages. In my opinion JawJaw has been quick to respond, upfront and studious in his efforts to help the TW community - it is inno's efforts in resolving an issue that they themselves have created that seem very underwhelming.

I will stop at this point now even though I have so much more to say on the issue and I want to go on a huge rant.

 

[Mithrae]

While this whole disaster leaves me with disappointment that a 'mistake' on their part has affected a large percentage of their player base and I am considering making any worlds I am playing on the last still I doubt that this was a money grab by inno. If it truly were a money grab I am sure they would have found an excuse to leave the packages up for their entire intended duration so that vastly more people would have purchased the products or as a solution they would have said the only 'fair' way to deal with the issue is to allow everyone the opportunity to purchase the same products.

Anything is possible of course. I wonder whether they'd make more money by telling 20 or 30% of especially the higher-ranking/most active/most competitive accounts that they have a somewhat unique opportunity to gain a serious edge over the competition, or just by throwing a deal out to everyone on the world who wants it? When it's guaranteed that every dollar spent will further increase a genuine advantage over most competitors, a lot of folk are going to spend more than when they don't know how much or how little is needed to stay even or get ahead.

Conversely, if it wasn't a money grab then by far the most obvious and fair solution would have been a refund and either a) taking back all bonus where possible, b) rolling back the server to counteract any bonuses already used or c) giving all players all the bonuses to level the field again. Perhaps none of which would be a completely ideal fix to what we could then easily believe was a genuine mistake: But instead their 'solution' was to keep all the money they'd got from the sales and leave the players who bought them with 99% of the advantage they'd paid for.

And as various folk have already noted, this isn't the only time such a 'mistake' has been made, such as keeping P2W worlds as recommended even when non-P2W worlds were newer; we're looking at a pattern here, not some wild-eyed conspiracy theory Perhaps, somehow, they really did manage to overlook the special offer settings when they set up the world... and when they received complaints about players having noble boosters early on... and when W100 received the mail about the 15th anniversary event (which wouldn't have made them much money if it had gone ahead), and it was only once the big money-maker hit the world that they realized their oopsie. Maybe. But I think the scepticism is more than justified.

 

[Jirki88]

Senior's discounts, ladies nights, limited edition and exclusive offers are all illegal. In all countries. Who knew?

We all enjoy being internet lawyers at times, but I can one-up you as an internet judge, and it is the opinion of this court that in general businesses are not forced by law to offer any particular product or service to any particular person. Until money changes hands or an agreement is signed, they're free to make offers as broadly or selectively as they please and withdraw them at any time, in general. There may be exceptions where there are concerns around issues like racial discrimination, but even then I've heard that (*ahem* I mean that my ruling on) the recent US Supreme Court decision leans against the broadest interpretation of public accommodation obligations.

Actually, this does in fact break a number of state laws and there have been cases where companies have been successfully sued for things like discounts for woman etc.

So there's you answer, i knew.

Limited editions are open to everyone until stock runs out so that's a whole different story.

Also with the 2006 AGG a case could be made for this particular thing but idk if i want to spend my summer break reading up on the specific subject, i've spent more than enough time on stuff like this in uni.

None of these are points are particularly relevant, however, since InnoGames is a German company, operating under German and European Union law, not US law, be it state or federal.

 

[Mithrae]

None of these are points are particularly relevant, however, since InnoGames is a German company, operating under German and European Union law, not US law, be it state or federal.

To be fair the 2006 AGG which CHT alluded to is German legislation... although dealing with employer/employee discrimination rather than how and what products businesses offer their customers. What can I say, internet lawyers amuse me

 

[DeletedUser120518]

None of these are points are particularly relevant, however, since InnoGames is a German company, operating under German and European Union law, not US law, be it state or federal.

To be fair the 2006 AGG which CHT alluded to is German legislation... although dealing with employer/employee discrimination rather than how and what products businesses offer their customers. What can I say, internet lawyers amuse me

You're wrong again, even though it is the main focus point of this particular German Legislation that does not mean it's its only use.
This bit is taken directly from the legislation itself.

Beyond the fields of employment and occupation, the AGG also applies to access to and supply of goods and services, for example when shopping, visiting a restaurant or a discotheque, searching for a flat, or conducting insurance and banking transactions. The procurement of goods and services is generally a form of bulk business, which is generally conducted without regard to the individual involved. Individual contracts between private persons are not included in this category.

I'd say this perfectly matches Inno.

So you internet lawyer read up, perhaps do a case study or two on the AGG before i have to prove you wrong again...

 

[Mithrae]

You're wrong again

You didn't show me to be wrong even once, yet Seniors discounts, ladies nights etc. are certainly not illegal in all countries, your claim that there have been successful civil suits in some US states notwithstanding.

even though it is the main focus point of this particular German Legislation that does not mean it's its only use.
This bit is taken directly from the legislation itself.

Beyond the fields of employment and occupation, the AGG also applies to access to and supply of goods and services, for example when shopping, visiting a restaurant or a discotheque, searching for a flat, or conducting insurance and banking transactions. The procurement of goods and services is generally a form of bulk business, which is generally conducted without regard to the individual involved. Individual contracts between private persons are not included in this category.

I'd say this perfectly matches Inno.

So you internet lawyer read up, perhaps do a case study or two on the AGG before i have to prove you wrong again...

Nice Googling my friend. Pretty sure that's not from the legislation itself, but if you had continued reading on for a mere 2-6 sentences you might have seen both that the document specifically notes that "differences of treatment in routine business dealings are common and often even desired," and more importantly that the types of discrimination covered by the act are those of ethnicity, sexuality, age, religion and disability - none of which are even remotely relevant to Innogames' product offerings to its anonymous clientele!

"Unlike the characteristic of race/ethnic origin, differences of treatment on grounds of the characteristics of sex, religion, disability, age and sexual orientation are admissible when there is an objective reason for it.

Differences of treatment in routine business dealings is common and often even desired."
~ Guide to the General Equal Treatment Act pp27-28​

You're the one who came to the thread with high-minded proclamations of what is 'legal' here and what isn't. Admittedly, I don't think you're the only one who has done so. I just find it amusing that such basic Googling and even general knowledge suggests that you don't particularly know what you're talking about. Hence my description 'internet lawyer'; one who presents himself as a would-be lawyer under the anonymity of the internet. Your earlier comment implied you were a law student, and fair enough... still not quite there yet

Nothing personal intended.

 

[DeletedUser120518]

are admissible when there is an objective reason for it.

But in this case there is no objective reason for it, that's the whole point...

 

[DeletedUser80720]

i think you should both stop acting like lawyers when none of you even have a law degree ^^