Does this guy have a legit gripe? (feels scammed by microsoft on FFXI fees)

[rjcc]

I can't believe the guy would buy this game without noticing it was online only.

http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/final-...-final_21.html

This was when I discovered something very disturbing. Despite having just spent $60 to buy the game, 3 hours trying to get the game installed and years waiting for this moment, I was now told that I had to pay a $12.95 monthly fee plus $1 per character if I wanted to play the game. Now I'm not opposed to paying monthly fees to play video games. In fact I've used Gamefly before and really like not having to pay a big up front charge just to try something. I'm also not opposed to paying up front charges to get games that I know I will play over and over again despite how old the game gets, but this was clearly a case where Microsoft was double dipping and charging consumers both types of fees without disclosing this prior to the upfront purchase.

As a consumer, I feel deceived by Microsoft and think that they are using false advertising to promote the game. I never would have spent the up front money in order to buy the game if I knew that it was going to cost me more then $200 to play the game for the next 12 months. Even worse was that I found out after purchasing the game that there was no resale value to the game because only one license is granted to each disc. No where on Amazon's website is this monthly fee disclosed and nowhere on the box does it tell consumers that they'll have to pay $14 per month on top of the $60 to play the game.

[Gary Whitta]

It really doesn't say anywhere on the box that a montly subscription charge will apply? I find that hard to believe.

In fact, it's bullshit - I just pulled up an image of the box from Amazon.com and it says "This Game Requires Additional Monthly Fee" right on the front of the case, in the top-left.

So no, he doesn't have a case.

[Matthew Gallant]

I think this guy is not too swift when it comes to attention to detail. He keeps calling SquareEnix "SquareUnix". He should probably work for Kotaku.

[Lunch of Kong]

Yes. If what he claims is true -- did microsoft either fail to disclose the monthly fees on the box or do so in a misleading manner? -- he has a legitimate gripe.

[DanielElliot]

Oh I'm sure it says on the box "Monthly fee required" or "Subscription required", probably in the same little box where it says "Supports Xbox Live" "Downloadable Content", etc.

[Jim Preston]

Hmmm...it does say on the front of the box "online only" but that hardly suggests an additional fee, after all Battlefield 2 is essentially online only, at least if you want to have fun. It wouldn't surprise me that a casual gamer would see "final fantasy" and pick it up without investigation. I can see his concern.

[Gary Whitta]

Originally Posted by Jim Preston

Hmmm...it does say on the front of the box "online only" but that hardly suggests an additional fee

No, but what do suggest it are the words "This Game Requires: Additional Monthly Fee", which appear in the top-left corner of the front of the box, directly below the main Xbox 360 logo.

[rjcc]

In the comments he says that was covered by a sticker.

He also says he got the release date off of team xbox, but he didn't read any previews, or any reviews, or anything about this game ever, because he didn't want it to be spoiled.

[Charles]

I can see the problem with someone picking it up without ready the box completely, but I checked a couple internet sites (futureshop, bestbuy) and both mention required fees.

But... I would assume the game comes with at least one month free play, right?

[slantz]

Also, I think in the case of Amazon, it may be their responsibility to put such limitations front and center on the product page.

I hardly think it's appropriate if the only place that info was listed was in a zoomed-in picture. I find it a stretch that it's the responsibility of the consumer to fully investigate all images attached for a given product to find any 'gotchas' like this.

FWIW, the Amazon page does not list the monthly fee requirement. IMO, they should be held responsible for refunding the money upon return from anyone who bought it there.

[Thrag]

Originally Posted by rjcc

I can't believe the guy would buy this game without noticing it was online only.

http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/final-...-final_21.html

Yeah, after reading the article I'd have to conclude the author is a moran. The fact that he keep blaming MS for everything is the first clue, since MS does not make this game. He's upset that he has to pay an online fee which should have been blazingly obvious to anyone who did two seconds of research. He's also upset with MS that it doesn't play over xbox live, even though that was the game maker's decision not MSs. This isn't a case of caveat emptor, it's a case of dumbass emptor.

[Gary Whitta]

Caveat Emptor, bitches! If you don't do even the basic bit of research required to find out that "Final Fantasy XI Online" is an MMO which may well require additional fees (as almost all MMOs do), you deserve to get burned.

[Fugitive]

Originally Posted by Thrag

He's also upset with MS that it doesn't play over xbox live, even though that was the game maker's decision not MSs.

Aw, does that mean there's no "AFK no less than 10 seconds over a continuous 48 hour period" Achievement?

[Jason Cross]

Originally Posted by Matthew Gallant

I think this guy is not too swift when it comes to attention to detail. He keeps calling SquareEnix "SquareUnix". He should probably work for Kotaku.

I was going to say you're being hard on Kotaku there, but they do have that story up today where they parrot the online "news site" meme about the Xbox 360 upgrade, where they didn't appear to even read the original article at all. They're talking about it like this "upgrade" is going to make the CPU run faster, which of course it won't, but that didn't stop a hoarde of internet news guys from jumping on the rediculous speculation bandwagon.

All the actual news says is that Chartered is going to move the 360 CPU to 65nm, which will make it run cooler and thus possibly require less noisy cooling. As with any die shrink, it would have the potential to run at a higher clock, but Microsoft stands no greater chance of doing that than, oh, every other console manufacturer has ever done with the scores of chip udpates that have come before. Die shrinks and chip updates are a regular part of a console's life cycle, and Kotaku's out there with some wild speculation and an imagined scenario about future games requiring future-generation Xboxes to run their best.

SIGH.

[rjcc]

awww jason, why would anyone blog about reality, when half baked fiction is so much more fun? I love it when kotaku does that (full disclosure n shit I blog for hdbeat, part of weblogs inc, a competitor)

but thanks to their "invited commenters" there is very little feedback or fact checking, they usually just ride with it. Sometimes their commenters do call them on stuff, but rarely from what i've seen.

[extarbags]

Originally Posted by Fugitive

Aw, does that mean there's no "AFK no less than 10 seconds over a continuous 48 hour period" Achievement?

The sad thing is, change that to ten minutes and I think I know at least three people who qualify.

[Factory]

As a general warning to all: If this guy ever does end up playing a MMO, DO NOT group with him. He will almost certainly ninja, and then claim that he thought that it was how grouping works.

[Joel]

Originally Posted by rjcc

awww jason, why would anyone blog about reality, when half baked fiction is so much more fun? I love it when kotaku does that (full disclosure n shit I blog for hdbeat, part of weblogs inc, a competitor)

but thanks to their "invited commenters" there is very little feedback or fact checking, they usually just ride with it. Sometimes their commenters do call them on stuff, but rarely from what i've seen.

Actually, if you read the comments, several people called Kotaku out (and rightly).

It's a shit post, I grant you. Thanks to the magic of 'having an editor account' I have updated the post to not be so retarded.

You know, it's not like Kotaku has a standing policy of trying to misrepresent stories. My editorial philosophy (which extends, in theory, to Kotaku's staff) is to underplay controversy in proportion to its importance; A strong story sells itself. But rjcc, as an employee of WINC, you of all people should know that stories occasionally become overwrought or inaccurate because the author doesn't fully grasp the source. (Not that that's a good thing, just the nature of the beast, as is fixing the story when your readers point it out.)

What I'm saying is, if you really want a comment invite, all you have to do is ask.

[Jason Cross]

Originally Posted by rjcc

but thanks to their "invited commenters" there is very little feedback or fact checking, they usually just ride with it. Sometimes their commenters do call them on stuff, but rarely from what i've seen.

I've been promised a commentor login about three times in the past, and it never happens. I don't know if they're afraid I'll be a jerk in the comments, or if the site is just having problems (that's what they usually say), or what. I'm actually quite civil about making factual corrections or adding to stories when I post on blogs, on digg, etc. I'm only a jerk to you guys around here. ;)

Originally Posted by Joel

You know, it's not like Kotaku has a standing policy of trying to misrepresent stories.

I realize this, and I'm just pokin' 'em in the ribs here. I would appreciate a popular news site or blog with a standing policy of "checking up on a story before reporting it" or at least "posting about how we're checking up on it, and updating the post with the checked-upon facts when we have them." Couldn't Kotaku have called MS PR and said "hey so, we see this statement from Chartered about an upgraded CPU in the first quarter of next year. Is that just a die shrink, or will it be faster, or what?"

Thanks for using your editor-powers for truth and justice (I'm serious here - that kind of thing needs to happen more often). But does this seem like the kind of news article where it would have been the least bit difficult to get it right the first time? And if so many commenters are wise enough to understand the story correctly, why is the guy who seemingly can't the one allowed to update the site with new stories?

Okay okay, enough griping. This thing is going to go way off the rails. I just get desperately annoyed about the echo chamber that is the online gaming news scene sometimes.

[Marcus]

That dude is just retarded. Just like the dipshits that get all pissed when they find out that WoW has a monthly sub. OMG WC3 WAS FREEEE WTF!!!

[LarryLard]

Originally Posted by Thrag

Yeah, after reading the article I'd have to conclude the author is a moran.

.....

[Joel]

Originally Posted by Jason Cross

I've been promised a commentor login about three times in the past, and it never happens. I don't know if they're afraid I'll be a jerk in the comments, or if the site is just having problems (that's what they usually say), or what. I'm actually quite civil about making factual corrections or adding to stories when I post on blogs, on digg, etc. I'm only a jerk to you guys around here. ;)

I just sent you a batch of invite codes. We have had comment problems in the past (still do, in fact), but you can suffer through them with everyone else if you'd like. :)

Originally Posted by Jason Cross

I realize this, and I'm just pokin' 'em in the ribs here. I would appreciate a popular news site or blog with a standing policy of "checking up on a story before reporting it" or at least "posting about how we're checking up on it, and updating the post with the checked-upon facts when we have them." Couldn't Kotaku have called MS PR and said "hey so, we see this statement from Chartered about an upgraded CPU in the first quarter of next year. Is that just a die shrink, or will it be faster, or what?"

Thanks for using your editor-powers for truth and justice (I'm serious here - that kind of thing needs to happen more often). But does this seem like the kind of news article where it would have been the least bit difficult to get it right the first time? And if so many commenters are wise enough to understand the story correctly, why is the guy who seemingly can't the one allowed to update the site with new stories?

You're right on all counts. The story probably didn't even need a call to check facts because common sense tells you that MS isn't going to split their product line. The guy who wrote it is a smart dude who just dropped the ball.

[Houngan]

I know you are all mostly associated with games, gamers, and gaming, but you're wrong on this one.

Sure, it's not the fault of the company that this guy didn't realize it was a MMO, but here's where games and software are unique to every other product, and some consumeables: you can't return them.

We all know the reasons for that, too. But the fact remains, if something is completely useless to you, or an utter disappointment, you should be able to return it. He's justified in that sense. I haven't the faintest idea how to implement a return policy for software these days that wouldn't be immediately exploited by a few million teenagers, but it's something that SHOULD be missed when it isn't there.

H.

[Tom Ohle]

After looking at the back of the box, it does say that there is a monthly fee required, so I apologize for misinterpeting what the sticker meant. I don't think that this is false advertising, but I still maintain that this is deceptive advertising however, because they don't disclose the true cost of the game until after the initial purchase. Also, I want to clarify that I don't blame Microsoft solely for the lack of disclosure. I blame SquareEnix more then anyone, but I put a lot of trust into Microsoft and because they are a recipient of the up front cost, I think that they have an ethical obligation to disclose what the true cost of the game is, before a consumer makes the up front purchase. Maybe it's not fair to hold Microsoft to a higher standard then other companies, but as a leader in the video game industry I expect more.

So he updated his site with that... so why is he still holding Microsoft responsible? He says it's "deceptive advertising"... but it's on there, on the box, quite clearly, and he admits that. So what's deceptive? Are they supposed to call the game "Final Fantasy XI: $15 Monthly Fee Required"? Do any MMOs mention the exact monthly fee? (curious, I really don't know)

[Qenan]

Just out of curiousity... what's the difference in point size between the game title and "Monthly Fee Required"?

[tromik]

Should be noted that Thomas Hawk was the guy who posted a story on digg about getting ripped off by an online camera store. The story currently has 9000 diggs, which I believe is the highest number of diggs at the moment. Maybe he's looking for his next big story?

[shift6]

Originally Posted by Joel

The story probably didn't even need a call to check facts because common sense tells you that MS isn't going to split their product line again.

Fixed. ;)

[Mark Crump]

Sure, it's online only and we know that online only means monthy fee. But does your average Xbox, and Xbox Live gamer know that?

On the cover it says: This game requires: Hard Drive (sold separately), Additional Monthy Fee, Broadband Connection.

On the back it says the same thing. It's in the fine print with everything else--all that bullshit you usually never read. It's also close to where they make mention that the XBox live stuff requires a paid subscription. It's not out of the realm of possibility that someone might think the two are connected--it's covered as part of your Xbox Live fee.

Especially since this is the first Xbox game to require an additional fee over Xbox Live.

Sure, research should prevented some of that, but I'm not sure if some of the previews I read about the Xbox version of FFXI mentioned it.

It's not deceptive advertising, but they sure didn't go out of their way on the box to bring it to your attention.

Oh wait, I just grabbed the cardboard cover case--there's a sticker there that says "free subscription for 30 days." Now, it would have been nice if on that sticker they also mentioned "Additional fees separate from Xbox Live Subscription."

[Guido Jones]

Originally Posted by Mark Crump

Especially since this is the first Xbox game to require an additional fee over Xbox Live.

First 360 game maybe, but not the first Xbox Live game. Phantasy Star Online also had monthly fees.

Also, if you can't understand "Additional montly fee required" you're a moron.

[DanielElliot]

I don't play Final Fantasy XI, but if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't want to play it with this guy and the drooling legions like him. So it's for the best that this is driving these people away, in other words :)