Living World Season 3 Complete pack Dicount Question.

[casualkenny.9817]

Mattdu you got it wrong.

1) The normal package is 960, which is 20% off compared to buying 6 episodes individually. This is done to tempt people to buy ALL the remaining episodes they don't own, as opposed to cherry-picking. Fortunately, if you only have 1 or 2 left to buy, they still give this package discount (yay for me). You CAN buy them separately, and people do buy them separately, esp an episode like lw3ep3, especially players who convert gold to gems but don't have enough to dole out that much gold at a time.

2) as advertised on the website, there is a 20% off of this package price. So 0.8x960. The 'normal' price that you see in the tool tip actually shows the current sale price, not the normal 960 price that you would have seen 1 week ago or 1 week later. (its kinda stupid, the way they designed this part of the system) afaik, you can't check the non-sales discount in-game during a sales period, at least I couldn't when I tried to check the s2 original price during last year's sale.

3) 36% is the effective discount that players calculate for ourselves, when we consider the individual purchase cost per episode. The website specifies that it is 20% off of the normal package price (960, pro-rated as applicable)

4) the discount % shown in the gem store itself is just crappy design.

[Klipso.8653]

When I wanted to finish season 2, I had to buy the last half of the season.

The price displays the full season, but only made me pay half of those gems for the episodes I didn't have when I made the purchase.

[MattDu.7123]

post removed

[casualkenny.9817]

im not gonna bother to quote all the things that u got wrong.

im just gonna point one thing out:When there is NO special (compounded) sale off of the sales package, the tool tip says something like "20% off!!1! Blabla complete pack".During this special promotional period of 20% off the sales package, as announced on the WEBSITE (i said website, not the gemshop), it now says 36% off!!1!.

That's one of the main things that you never noticed because you didn't have prior reason to notice, and that's where your argument in the previous posts fails.

[MattDu.7123]

post removed

[eldrjth.7384]

They need to offer refunds to players who request them based on misrepresenting the discount amount (they need to fix this issue and not just leave it too). One doesnt necessarily pull out a calculator to do a quick double check some just take what the game is telling them as correct i.e. a 68% discount off the price they would have to pay normally when its really 36%. This misrepresentation becomes a disincentive to purchase things from the gem store. Long term players might have trouble understanding the problem if they got all episodes for free when it was offered cause they dont have to pay for each episode.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@eldrjth.7384 said:They need to offer refunds to players who request them based on misrepresenting the discount amount (they need to fix this issue and not just leave it too). One doesnt necessarily pull out a calculator to do a quick double check some just take what the game is telling them as correct i.e. a 68% discount off the price they would have to pay normally when its really 36%. This misrepresentation becomes a disincentive to purchase things from the gem store. Long term players might have trouble understanding the problem if they got all episodes for free when it was offered cause they dont have to pay for each episode.

It’s not a misrepresentation when players fail to take into account all of the facts.

[casualkenny.9817]

The thing is, mattdu, the things that you have cited are true, but you have not addressed what I already said previously, specifically about the previous gemstore tooltip.

Namely:1)Normally, there is a '20% off' listed above the package name, for the package price of 960 gems.

2)So let's establish this - I am sure that you are not contending that this part is false advertising, yes? It is a 20% off of the total if you were to buy them piecemeal - and yes, people do buy them separately, through the story interface.

3)So my contention is that the previous 20% off line above the package name was specifically to convey to the potential buyer that this was a savings of 20% off IF and only if you purchased it as a set. Do you agree up to this point?

4)the current compound 20%off, which translates to an effective 36%, was simply subbed into the previous value, auto-calculated by the system (I base this on the OP's situation)

5)it is poor design that they were not specific about it, but I am 80% sure that this was an oversight (that should be fixed). Yes I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, that as a company, they were not consciously trying to mislead, in this situation only.

I have broken down my argument into separate points to establish at which stage you disagree, but the summary is this: the % off was intended to indicate the nett savings from separate purchases, based on previous non-sales display. The current display of 36% off is just the system-updated value.

Further, I also do believe it is possible that individual staff might have thought it could or should be displayed better, but decided that it wasn't that important or worth the effort, and might also fortuitously net them more purchases. They probably thought is wasn't a big deal.

Your complete argument is that they intentionally placed a new 36%-off label in order to deceive consumers into thinking that this 36% was off the package price itself. (and I am saying and also said previously that this label is not new at all, merely updated)

Our disagreement is on one point, that the 36% label was added in to deceive.

Your third cite is almost completely irrelevant, except for the middle part. In context, it pertains more to hidden charges.

Also, there is this: a consumer is unlikely to purchase something they do not know about, ie if the gemstore offer was what they first saw, they would first check what living world episodes were in the first place. What is lacking is an in-game indicator of the normal package pricing, which is unavailable in-game during sales promotions. And which is really bad design.

The unavailability of individual episodes in gemstore, and the unavailability of package in the story interface, is probably due to different market audience. Afaik, that's normal marketing strategy.

(And no, I don't have a personal gripe with you. I seldom take note of poster names, and I have no recollection of yours. I do dislike the tone of the op.)

[MattDu.7123]

post removed

[casualkenny.9817]

@MattDu.7123 said:

@MattDu.7123 said:Happy with the sale I'm just pointing out that the wording is wrong

I started with this.All I wanted to do was point out that it was displayed wrong. Which I put down to crappy design(and also mentioned)

@Ayrilana.1396 said:The part that was confusing you

@casualkenny.9817 said:Mattdu you got it wrong.

im not gonna bother to quote all the things that u got wrong.

I wasnt confused or wrong it was crappy design and the more you wanted to tell me i was wrong, the more I wanted to point it out.

I already specified the main piece of info that you lacked. You still have not responded to it. and yea, you don't intend to respond anymore, i get that.

@casualkenny.9817 said:The thing is, mattdu, the things that you have cited are true

it is poor design that they were not specific about it, but I am 80% sure that this was an oversight (that should be fixed). Yes I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, that as a company, they were not consciously trying to mislead, in this situation only.

Further, I also do believe it is possible that

individual

staff might have thought it could or should be displayed better, but decided that it wasn't that important or worth the effort, and might also fortuitously net them more purchases. They probably thought is wasn't a big deal.

So now I'm not wrong and it was confusing and a crappy design.

I specified the things that you cited, namely those copy-pastes that are presumably from some consumer rights laws or others from your local jurisdiction

I just wanted to stand up for what was right. New players fuel the gaming economy and longevity of this game. They are the ones that have to pay for the season packs. If they see things as misleading it hurts the game.

then do it starting from evaluating with all relevant pieces of info

I do dislike the tone of the op.

I appologise for upsetting you. I didn't realise my passion for righting a wrong was having such a negative effect.

I dont like to think that I hurt anyones feelings, so this is my last post on these forums. Good bye, take care all and again sorry.

OP is original post, whazzit got to do with you.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@MattDu.7123 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:The part that was confusing youI wasnt confused or wrong it was crappy design and the more you wanted to tell me i was wrong, the more I wanted to point it out.

Except you are wrong. The full cost of the season 3 pack without any discounts is 1200 gems. The percentage shown is the total discount off of that amount.