Flagged post and removed for pointing out UK legislation


I just had a post censored by admins because I violated the UA by stating the UK already has in place legislations to protect players from look boxes and in game micro transactions.

They will likely flag and ban me for posting this. Feel free to look it up yourself but if you live in UK you have wrrights scopee apparently does not want others to know about.


Anybody can flag your comment.


I’m guessing it was flagged because you mentioned refunds. Super dumb reason.


I’m not sure the UK does have any legislation about in game micro-transactions. Wish flagging was removed from the forum though. They should just employ a few moderators if they want the board moderated



That’s uk refund policy that applies to DLC and digital content. No obligation to refund unless there is a fault.


I’m sure any number of reasons are available when asking “Whats Wrong With it?”

Also, about the flagged posts, I am pretty sure that other Scopely Employees are flagging posts that they dont agree with.


The UK refund policy does allow users to get refunds of in game purchased items. I know this from speaking with others.

North America is more of a judgement call. I have in the past asked for a refund from Apple due to miss leading information.

Either scopee does not want players to be aware f this or some one is hiding it. Some people do not want certain information posted to general public.


Chance, increased chance, 2x chance.

So long as chance is not clearly defined, it’s 100% gambling.


Good job. You want some kind of reward?


I live in the UK. I’m familiar with the consumer rights act. If you get a refund for an in game purchase for any reason other than it’s broken, it’s because the seller has used their discretion. It’s not law. Even returns of physical goods under a stores 28 day returns, is because it is there policy, rather than a legal obligation.

Try and get a refund through google play for a purchase. They will issue one or two as a good will gesture under their policy. But if they think you’re abusing refunds (i.e. Because of buyers remorse) they won’t refund you, and they will mark your account against ever receiving an automatic refund. How can they do this? Because they don’t have to refund for anything that isn’t broken.


Then I guess there is some that have found a way to abuse as i know of people who buy the highest value item. Ask for refund and play it through doing this every month in UK


There is a reason why Google Play recently updated their pay screen pop up such that users have to click one extra time before actually going into the password landing to confirm payment.

Previously, their TOS were super unclear but you are correct to say that it is a policy rather than legal obligation.

In Canada, in-game micro-transactions are now considered a branch of gambling and the Government has started to produce various pamphlets and updates on official websites to promote awareness. Soon, unless there are major gaming lobbyist pushing against this, it could be possible for similar legislation or, my guess, Alcohol and Gaming Commission could take over this portfolio. There’s just too much revenue flowing down this stream.


I think Japan might be cracking down on this too. Over there gaming addiction gets as much government funding as substance addiction, because they realise how damaging it can be


Not necessarily. It’s more about actually receiving a monetary reward when spending money that makes it gambling. Many micro-transactions aren’t countered gambling because the items you’re buying have absolutely 0 value. As such, you’re paying for an experience, and not actually gambling for more money.


But refunds has nothing to do with the concept of micro-transactions and gambling itself.


Actually it does, if gambling isn’t aleatory but predefined (like viktorgate showed us) or sale doesn’t match described product (even if it is in boundaries of other product) it does show malevolent behavior of one side and requires return of money or defined as conditio sine causa.


As in solely. Refunds exist in all forms of shopping and products, just because it exists in micro-transactions/gambling doesn’t mean that those concepts are defined by it. If refunds only happened in micro-transactions/gambling, then that would be a different situation.

Because when you think refunds, you generally think unhappiness or low satisfaction with a product. You don’t just think strictly micro-transactions/gambling. So bringing up the idea of refunds when in correlation with what is or isn’t gambling has no bearing on this discussion.


You actually answered to your post in first sentence, then contradicted in everything else like microtransaction is revolutionary form of contract law that never existed, which I have no idea how did you concluded (indirectly). Also gambling is given by chance, it is aleatory created obligation no matter of its sub-forms (there are many contract subforms that doesn’t include “throw the money for a chance”, but are consisted of work, time passing, actions etc and carry the mark of aleatory obligations) same rules apply to the parties, general law is same in that area in europe as is in states. Micro transaction is also form of trade so as said general rules apply, no matter how abstract someone is trying to make it and deny rights to one party - product must match its description and must not mislead buyer or transaction isn’t fulfilled to its purpose . So yeah, definitely big R is involved.


I worry very much about this game being shut down by some consumer protection authority.