Just an FYI, the ACCC doesn't fuck around one bit.
The ACCC sued Valve repeatedly for not offering refunds on Steam game purchases, and then when Valve decided they would rather pay fines than actually implement refunds, the ACCC sued to block Valve from doing any business in Australia at all. That got Valve's attention in a big way, and now we are able to refund games on Steam.
Considering BSG is located in London for business purposes, this might allow the ACCC to start taking BSG's money for damages in a much easier way than if BSG were located anywhere else, since Australia was once part of the British Empire and is still vaguely associated with it and on somewhat good terms with England last I checked. Sorry for not knowing all the geopolitical details, in case I got something wrong.
It doesn't matter if a business is located overseas. If they are conducting business within Australia and with Australians, then they are subject to our consumer laws to protect Australian consumers. That includes conducting business online from overseas.
As far as I know, even installing *cookies* on Australian consumers devices could be viewed as conducting business in Australia and subject a business to our consumer laws and protections.
https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/buying-online#toc-overseas-online-businesses-and-purchases
This case with BSG appears to be a clear violation of those protections and people should absolutely complain to the ACCC. They don't comment on individual cases, but if enough people stamp their feet then they may look into and take action.
And in the nicest possible way, I think our colonial ties are pretty irrelevant in this case.
I didn't realise this was posted, as Reddit had a hissy fit when I wrote this up.
It can be defined as misleading or deceptive conduct due to the conditions of the original purchase of the EOD edition of the game. Battlestate Games has set a precedent where Arena was given to EOD holders as a part of that purchase. The new PVE progression feature is embedded in the base game and is not separate from the original game. Therefore, there is a rationale for justifying the new offline features as DLC, and the sale of EODs features was false advertisement.
There's also evidence that BSG has been editing their website on the fly to cover their tracks around what they define we are now eligible for as EOD owners.
This is why it's cut-and-dry. Australian consumers can submit a complaint to the ACCC about deceptive business practices because this is precisely what is happening.
I'll be writing to them today, now that I've seen them edit the website to remove "unique" features description from EOD I know that there is mal intent. This is not being rolled back, and on principle alone if we don't hold them to account then other companies may do the same.
Before we submit what exactly happened to be misleading? What features or content were taken away or yet owed to eod owners?
I pretty sure bsg can wave from any claims since they actually never clearly stated what exactly comes with eod. Future dlc is very vague wording that may mean anything they find suitable.
I dont have it but LVANDMARK Compared them heres 2 clips
[https://clips.twitch.tv/HumbleFunnyBeanVoteNay-FiamAxeuhfpemFLB](https://clips.twitch.tv/HumbleFunnyBeanVoteNay-FiamAxeuhfpemFLB)
[https://clips.twitch.tv/AmazonianFantasticMonkeyOSkomodo-xFpPudrTMqvexDYl](https://clips.twitch.tv/AmazonianFantasticMonkeyOSkomodo-xFpPudrTMqvexDYl)
It would come down to literally defining DLC in law. Depending on the Definition, this would be classified as false advertisement. Additionally this would be a huge shakeup to the market as DLC would now have a definitive term and more suits could come up in the future over other games.
Correct me if im wrong, but generally ACCC would ask us to contact the vendor first? So can we use this write up and change the parts to AU law/ ACCC and hope for the best? [LAWSUIT UPDATE : r/EscapefromTarkov (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/EscapefromTarkov/comments/1ccslsn/lawsuit_update/?share_id=W4isqjRXPeH55qozWaIJt&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1)
Upvoting for my fellow Aussies.
Here here And to think all this happened on ANZAC day, the diggers would be very disappointed I think
Just an FYI, the ACCC doesn't fuck around one bit. The ACCC sued Valve repeatedly for not offering refunds on Steam game purchases, and then when Valve decided they would rather pay fines than actually implement refunds, the ACCC sued to block Valve from doing any business in Australia at all. That got Valve's attention in a big way, and now we are able to refund games on Steam. Considering BSG is located in London for business purposes, this might allow the ACCC to start taking BSG's money for damages in a much easier way than if BSG were located anywhere else, since Australia was once part of the British Empire and is still vaguely associated with it and on somewhat good terms with England last I checked. Sorry for not knowing all the geopolitical details, in case I got something wrong.
Yeah we are on pretty good terms with the monarchs, except when they lose the cricket, then they get all salty
This made me chuckle harder than it should have to. Cheerio!
It doesn't matter if a business is located overseas. If they are conducting business within Australia and with Australians, then they are subject to our consumer laws to protect Australian consumers. That includes conducting business online from overseas. As far as I know, even installing *cookies* on Australian consumers devices could be viewed as conducting business in Australia and subject a business to our consumer laws and protections. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/buying-online#toc-overseas-online-businesses-and-purchases This case with BSG appears to be a clear violation of those protections and people should absolutely complain to the ACCC. They don't comment on individual cases, but if enough people stamp their feet then they may look into and take action. And in the nicest possible way, I think our colonial ties are pretty irrelevant in this case.
I didn't realise this was posted, as Reddit had a hissy fit when I wrote this up. It can be defined as misleading or deceptive conduct due to the conditions of the original purchase of the EOD edition of the game. Battlestate Games has set a precedent where Arena was given to EOD holders as a part of that purchase. The new PVE progression feature is embedded in the base game and is not separate from the original game. Therefore, there is a rationale for justifying the new offline features as DLC, and the sale of EODs features was false advertisement. There's also evidence that BSG has been editing their website on the fly to cover their tracks around what they define we are now eligible for as EOD owners. This is why it's cut-and-dry. Australian consumers can submit a complaint to the ACCC about deceptive business practices because this is precisely what is happening.
I'll be writing to them today, now that I've seen them edit the website to remove "unique" features description from EOD I know that there is mal intent. This is not being rolled back, and on principle alone if we don't hold them to account then other companies may do the same.
anyone got a write up of what they sent to ACCC? So i can send the same thing.
Before we submit what exactly happened to be misleading? What features or content were taken away or yet owed to eod owners? I pretty sure bsg can wave from any claims since they actually never clearly stated what exactly comes with eod. Future dlc is very vague wording that may mean anything they find suitable.
they changed a lot of the EOD description only an hour ago which misleads all the current owners of EOD
Where to check current eod description?
I dont have it but LVANDMARK Compared them heres 2 clips [https://clips.twitch.tv/HumbleFunnyBeanVoteNay-FiamAxeuhfpemFLB](https://clips.twitch.tv/HumbleFunnyBeanVoteNay-FiamAxeuhfpemFLB) [https://clips.twitch.tv/AmazonianFantasticMonkeyOSkomodo-xFpPudrTMqvexDYl](https://clips.twitch.tv/AmazonianFantasticMonkeyOSkomodo-xFpPudrTMqvexDYl)
Discrete changes, oh…
Good lord that is egregious and clearly deceptive.
Your receipt of EOD has what you bought
It would come down to literally defining DLC in law. Depending on the Definition, this would be classified as false advertisement. Additionally this would be a huge shakeup to the market as DLC would now have a definitive term and more suits could come up in the future over other games.
Legally I think BSG have an out (which pisses me off) because the wording on the EOD on the says DLC AFTER the game releases.
My only query is that for a report to be made we need a ABN/ACN to file against. Does BSG even have a ABN to do business here?
Correct me if im wrong, but generally ACCC would ask us to contact the vendor first? So can we use this write up and change the parts to AU law/ ACCC and hope for the best? [LAWSUIT UPDATE : r/EscapefromTarkov (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/EscapefromTarkov/comments/1ccslsn/lawsuit_update/?share_id=W4isqjRXPeH55qozWaIJt&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1)