It is the old thing. I wont change my mind if I disagree with something because someone tell the same argument I already disagree with.
Everywhere, when you buy something, it must have the table of contents because most things make no sense by themselves.
So you require a picture of only a soggy party baloon because you are required to inflate it ? Or you require never to show a car going around in ads because fuel is not included for life ? Again, the watch example serves to anything that is not clothing that show up humans because the clothing is not included ?
IT is hard to not make the case that people treat the average consumer as if they were ākidsā (to not say the ban word) when someone makes points like those.
It is perfectly reasonable for a teenager even that when you see a picture of something for sale, and there is a LIST OF CONTENT, the list of what it contains. It is insane to imply they need to hammer that point in every single thing just because you cant be reasonable.
I āalmostā understand the point people make about fast food ads showing burgers you cant get in real life, because that is different, a bit. They are showing the things that are listed as the items being sold, in a deceptive way. But when it is literally shown a list of what is in the bundle, it is deceptive to imply shady practices.
Having to argue for that point seems like being that guy:
āBecause water is in the toiled and I never saw plants growing in the toiletā.
Not at all a liability or loose canon. Youāre one of the most reasonable and diplomatic contributors afaiac.
You have every right to question this and I believe should receive an official response in a timely manner. Considering that you are against the clock and shouldnāt they be answering it for a potential sale?
I think youāre missing the point that there are pieces (namely the sarcophagus) that were sold in the set previously when it was a partial set but have been removed from the ācompleteā set. If it was always sold separately, I donāt think weād be having this same conversation.
Well, some countries do have consumer protection laws that require you to have a mention next to a product picture if that picture contains things that are not included in the deal.
I donāt think this applies to pictures of cars with scantily clad ladies posing next to them, as most countries have probably banned slave trading in their legislation. But if you have a picture of a steak with a sprig of parsley on it, and the parsley is not included, there needs to be a mention of the parsley not included next to the picture.
On the other hand, if youāre selling a car, it is expected to include the engine and other necessary innards even if they cannot be seen in the photo, because by definition a car is a motor vehicle rather than just a chassis.
The set in question here is marketed as a āCompleteā set. However, apparently it does not include some items that were part of the products that make up the set. Itās like buying a Babylon 5 Complete Collection and finding out that they left out two episodes from Season 5 because they were crappy filler episodes. Sure, you could still enjoy the series without missing anything vital, but it would not be complete.
I understand that a set sold as ācomplete setā is ācompleteā at the time of release. When they released Babylon 5 The Lost Tales, I did not demand to get them for free because I had bought the Complete set before that release. (In my opinion, those lost tales wouldāve been better off if they had remained lost, but thatās just, like, my opinion.)
This one has discovered the legalese mechanism to explain why the Lost Dungeon complete doesnāt have the sarcophagus.
The Sarcophagus was part of the Forlorn Crypt set. Not the Lost Dungeon set.
The āLost Dungeon Completeā set is actually just an expanded Lost Dungeon set with elements from the Forlorn Crypt set. Those elements do not include the Sarcophagus (or certain other bits, but those bits are not on display in the catalogue image)
Ok so as the Lost Dungeon pack (it is not a set) has now rotated off the Bazaar, I am going to point out a subsequent, troubling observation then I am going to move on from this topic and let it dissipate.
Remember: just in case there was any ambiguity in the OP, the crux of my complaint here, which is that the Lost Dungeon ācompleteā set was not actually complete, as the sarcophagus was not included. If it was I would not be here raising the issues. So imagine my disdain when <48 hours after the Lost Dungeon ācompleteā set rotated off the Bazaar, the sarcophagus came on the Bazaar for separate sale. And the timingā¦just a coincidence? It is almost like they wanted us to pay two sums of money for one complete set. Call me crazy if you will but this strikes me as a deliberate act to try double dip. So let us examine it more closely.
They want us to first pay $26.49 AUD (2,128cc) for the oxymoronic āCompleteā Set, then an additional $6.22 AUD (500cc) for the Sarcophagus separately. So if we want an actual complete set (not a falsely advertised, incomplete one) it will cost players $26.94 plus then an additional $6.22 = $33.16.
@KorgFoehammer your reply was little more than a strawman, an ad hominem and a false equivalency all rolled into one dishonest post. If we havent moved past your confirmation bias yet (I doubt it), then let me see if I can break it down into even simpler terms and see if we can spell this out for
See these guys get it, but it still somehow eludes you.
Cited within
Complete: having all neccessary parts, containing all, total, absolute, brought to an end, including all modifiers or objects, to make a whole or perfect.
A complete set means a complete set. Not part if a set, not most of a set. No ifs ands or buts, a complete set is a
Thatās a whole different can of worms that should deserve its own thread. Itās scummy and almost reverse FOMO since theyāve done it with more than a couple sets at this point.
Nope, I am still not paying for it period. I made the decision not to purchase it on principle. So I still do not own it. I will not make two payments when the pack was advertised as a complete set. You know I do not wish to be scathing or indifferent, but if you chose to buy the set early on and wound up paying significantly more then that is on you. You should have noticed by now that Funcom has a tendency to release part of a set initially then release an expansion or the remainder of it later. If you did not then you havenāt been paying attention. May I suggest moving forward you exercise greater impulse control, delay instant gratification, and opt to wait for a more comprehensive version to release at a later date if you are determined to buy it. This is one of my good traits; I have excellent impulse control when it comes to making purchases.
I impulse buy on occasion, but I balance the impulse by how often am I gonna use it. Lost Dungeonās wet mossy feel definitely worked with my port town builds, but I was super annoyed about getting screwed on the first part of the set. By that point, I assumed theyād be done with the second oneā¦ and then the third one came out. I feel like itās still missing a few key pieces, so idk whatās next. It would be nice if they just released it all at onceā¦ or at least everything, then if they āforgotā something useful, add it later (Iām thinking of every new set missing dense foundations).
I have purchased all of their DLCs for both Skyrim and Fallout 4 (for New Vegas and Oblivion I just brought the game of the year editions when they came out) and I felt the DLCs were reasonable value for money. Never really touched the Creation Club stuff. I have no idea what the pricing of additional content looks like on either The Elder Scrolls Online or Fallout 76 as I have never played them due to my internet situation. Are they good value for money or not really?
That is what a company which had a mutual respect and appreciation for its loyal customers who helped their product thrive and helped keep them in business would do. But no, we get ambiguous/inaccurate product descriptions, missing items, FOMO and exorbitant prices.
Call me crazy if you will but this strikes me as a deliberate act to try double dip. So let us examine it more closely.
