Refund?

Classic Discussion
I'm with Nuckchorris on this one.

Spouting out false promises, exaggerations and undeliverable features is all part of the general marketing drive. Ask Peter Molyneux and also the developers of No Man's Sky.

The company is legally only obliged to refund your cash if you can actually prove that the product you bought is genuinely unfit for purpose. That means if you buy a can opener that will not open any cans you can get your cash back. If you buy one that makes additional claims to answer the door, make tea and tell jokes, (but in fact did nothing but open cans and contain a set of written instructions for opening a door, with some jokes scribbled on it, along with a teabag) you'd have a harder job from a legal standpoint, and the primary purpose is still adhered to. The remainder will be legally defended from the position of 'invitation to treat'. If it came to court you'd have a fight on your hands.

Your main recurse is 'false advertising', but proving such a thing is tricky - and the net result is usually the company being forced to change their advertising pitch and/or branding rather than actual customer refunds.
12/11/2018 19:36Posted by Grupp
I'm with Nuckchorris on this one.

Spouting out false promises, exaggerations and undeliverable features is all part of the general marketing drive. Ask Peter Molyneux and also the developers of No Man's Sky.

The company is legally only obliged to refund your cash if you can actually prove that the product you bought is genuinely unfit for purpose. That means if you buy a can opener that will not open any cans you can get your cash back. If you buy one that makes additional claims to answer the door, make tea and tell jokes, (but in fact did nothing but open cans and contain a set of written instructions for opening a door, with some jokes scribbled on it, along with a teabag) you'd have a harder job from a legal standpoint, and the primary purpose is still adhered to. The remainder will be legally defended from the position of 'invitation to treat'. If it came to court you'd have a fight on your hands.

Your main recurse is 'false advertising', but proving such a thing is tricky - and the net result is usually the company being forced to change their advertising pitch and/or branding rather than actual customer refunds.


The first and biggest thing he is going to loose , is the name : "World of Warcraft Classic" instead of "World of Warcraft" as Vanilla was originally called.

The rest is just science fiction.
It's not even started yet, the plan isn't set in stone yet so if you want to held Blizzard liable you have to see the contract first. Maybe there will be no sharding but more realms and merges later, maybe the sharding will have explicit start/end dates or similar rules that will apply from day 1? We don't know that yet so let's wait and save ourselves some time and nerves.
12/11/2018 19:36Posted by Grupp
Your main recurse is 'false advertising', but proving such a thing is tricky - and the net result is usually the company being forced to change their advertising pitch and/or branding rather than actual customer refunds.


That's also the point really.

They haven't advertised anything. It is currently nothing but statements, and the game so far isn't even finished.

Asking if they can get a refund if they don't like the game when the game is free to retail subscribers is like buying a hot dog and wanting a refund because it didn't taste exactly as you expected it to, AFTER you ate it.
You have to understand where Blizzard are coming from on this, they are trying to piggyback the Classic servers on their current sharding tech for convenience and economical reasons, it seems almost likely they wouldn't even bother otherwise.

That means it's tied to the sharding system and they are going to make an effort to make it less obtrusive, but the reality of the situation is if a zone gets overloaded with players you will see sharding in play.

Picture launch day, you think Blizzard are going to server cap at 2500 and make players sit in 8 hour queues? Or are they going to let people log in and shard them off in the hope that in higher level zones and after some weeks/months the player count will drop to numbers where they don't "need" sharding.

State your opinions but expect the expected. Expect sharding, don't expect 2500 player caps.
12/11/2018 20:03Posted by Bigbazz
You have to understand where Blizzard are coming from on this, they are trying to piggyback the Classic servers on their current sharding tech for convenience and economical reasons, it seems almost likely they wouldn't even bother otherwise.

That means it's tied to the sharding system and they are going to make an effort to make it less obtrusive, but the reality of the situation is if a zone gets overloaded with players you will see sharding in play.

Picture launch day, you think Blizzard are going to server cap at 2500 and make players sit in 8 hour queues? Or are they going to let people log in and shard them off in the hope that in higher level zones and after some weeks/months the player count will drop to numbers where they don't "need" sharding.

State your opinions but expect the expected. Expect sharding, don't expect 2500 player caps.

i think biggest fear people have, is that they are going to use sharding later on when single server blade gets loaded By players, such as PVP event when one faction raids other factions capital, or AQ event.
12/11/2018 20:20Posted by Cai
12/11/2018 20:03Posted by Bigbazz
You have to understand where Blizzard are coming from on this, they are trying to piggyback the Classic servers on their current sharding tech for convenience and economical reasons, it seems almost likely they wouldn't even bother otherwise.

That means it's tied to the sharding system and they are going to make an effort to make it less obtrusive, but the reality of the situation is if a zone gets overloaded with players you will see sharding in play.

Picture launch day, you think Blizzard are going to server cap at 2500 and make players sit in 8 hour queues? Or are they going to let people log in and shard them off in the hope that in higher level zones and after some weeks/months the player count will drop to numbers where they don't "need" sharding.

State your opinions but expect the expected. Expect sharding, don't expect 2500 player caps.

i think biggest fear people have, is that they are going to use sharding later on when single server blade gets loaded By players, such as PVP event when one faction raids other factions capital, or naxxramaxx event.


I think that fear is justified because it's almost certainly going to be the case, the current way they run the servers with sharding seems to struggle more with an overload of players in a single instance than the old servers did, it just doesn't take down an entire continent when it starts to cripple.

The old way of running servers with modern server equipment can handle a lot of players in one zone, but the way they run sharding is not the same and I think it works specifically because of the ability to portion players off into separate shards to spread the load.
man sharding sucks so hard, idk why people accept this
Asking refund for sub? you wont get that is non refundable if you can read says it before purchaded
The only "refund" they tend to give is one free day if they really think they owe the players that from maybe unforseen extended maintenance.
That big wall of text you keep agreeing to without reading states that the game remains Blizzard's sole intellectual property and you agree that they can modify it however they see fit.

It's not false advertising if they didn't specifically state in an advert, as a selling point, that there would be no sharding.

Even so they can still use the defense of sharding being required to serve a satisfactory experience to supersede any perceived promises made in an advert.

Simply saying "subject to change" in the small print is enough to basically render any promise a company makes in an advert worth very little.
12/11/2018 18:25Posted by Spiike
Lawfully speaking, if Blizzard decides to back down on their promise of removing sharding after the population has stabilized, could you request a full refund?

I mean false advertising is against the law, isn't it?

I'm asking because I can tolerate sharding for the first few weeks because I can just not play during that time, but I have this nagging feeling that Blizzard isn't planning on removing it completely and will still continue to use sharding when the stress on the servers becomes too much, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on this matter.


Read the EULA, you have no rights.

And besides, you are paying per month, when you do not like it anymore you are free to leave without any strings attached.
If you're requesting a refund cause you're afraid it might impact your personal finances, then you're in dire need of a source of income; 15 euro/month is next to no money.
13/11/2018 18:14Posted by Mallirius
If you're requesting a refund cause you're afraid it might impact your personal finances, then you're in dire need of a source of income; 15 euro/month is next to no money.

It's not about the money, it's about the principle.
Simple Answer: No you are not eligible for a refund. You pay your fee to be allowed to use their service (eg playing on their servers). You can play all day long, so they filled their part of the contract. There is nothing that says that blizzard has to make it the best time of your live. Ofc they will try to do their best, because an unhappy customer is going to unsub, but legally they can do on their servers whatever they want.
13/11/2018 23:18Posted by Spiike
It's not about the money, it's about the principle.
The only principle that applies here is the principle of you signing an agreement that lets you play their game and them to change it anyway they see fit.

Even after promising something and changing it anyway, just because.

You had a choice and you made it. You gave your money and took the candy.

Now deal with it and honor your part of the bargain.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum