pretty done
Member
WTB cheap WWE 2K16 Steam key
Check my previous post. It's $20.WTB
DOOM (2016) - steam key/gift - $20
HAVE
Paypal
I think I'm going to start selling without any benevolence. Selling stuff very fair or cheap hasn't changed anything in BST. The sale of free keys disgusts me in particular. That's incredibly foul. Let others know of the exploit so they can do it themselves or not do it at all. Don't exploit the GAFer. Gross.w-what about D, where I'm just in here for 4 weird reasons
-price error profits minorly, I've only done it twice
-hoping theres a rare game I can collect and then play
-buying random bst people gifts
-community moderation-ish reasons, because I hate scalpers (we're talking buying best buy game for $30 and posting in here for $45, not $5 or anything, just straight up reselling for more without telling origin)
Check my previous post. It's $20.
PS3
Manga
Anime
Anime Figures
Sand color
Doom (PS4/XBO/PC) is $20 at Newegg (code EMCENGT35) https://t.co/7ZCZqB2WMu
WTS
VLR Watch and ZTD Watch - $60 shipped - Don't need either of these and would like to sell them together. If you're only interested in one, let me know, but the price is for both together. Like most people, the case is cracked on ZTD watch, but it is still unopened.
I had a feeling this whole GoW4 thing was going to come to a head eventually.
My thoughts: To me, the Seller is always going to be responsible for any digital code that they sell. If you find an exploit, grab a bunch of keys, and then want to sell them, I think that's okay. BUT, if those keys get revoked, then you better be ready to refund all the money your received for them. I don't see how that part could even be an argument.
Now, if a Seller explicitly says that there is a chance that the codes may be revoked and they won't be responsible if they are? To me, that's a little more of a gray area. At that point, unless it's already widely known that the codes HAVE been revoked, then it isn't like the Buyer didn't know there was a chance it wouldn't work. The buyer knows for sure that there is a chance they may be revoked. On the other hand, I don't really like the idea of this becoming a thing we are okay with either. It has the potential to be a real mess to deal with and I don't know that it's something we even want to mess with.
If enough people want it, I think we could probably reword Rule #4 to include situations like this. I think the intent of that rule is already pretty much the same anyway, since we had a similar (not the same though) problem with MSDN keys and such. As always, I'm not just going to change the rules until we can get at least somewhat of a consensus on the subject though. That is, at least as much of a consensus as we can get without polling every single NeoGAF user like some people would like us to do before implementing rules.
Nothing can be done. You can't enforce a seller to be a responsible. How do you do it unless you purposely paid via PayPal + fee? Are we going to type out posts asking seller to give me my money back? Lol
The people who exploit these situations as buyers need to also be prepared for the risks of doing so.
No, it doesn't.
The rules are currently written out predominately to give people a guideline on how to list and behave in this thread. That we can enforce with the very limited help of a mod and volunteers. As a general rule, I think we are all in agreement that no one fucks anyone over. You don't need to spell it out. When they do, the best we can do his share our horror story and the person that is in the wrong takes take a hit on their feedback record and or gets banned in extreme circumstances. The person fucked still doesn't have their money back and there is nothing anyone here can do to control that. If someone here sells 25 stolen codes which are later revoked, there is zero you can do about it and typing up a useless rule doesnt change that.
The person I bought that code from said he would give me the money back if it got revoked. So make sure you make a deal upfront. If it gets revoked, nobody loses anything since the codes didn't cost money. Well, the under $20 ones at least haven't.
Did you redeem it on the Microsoft/Xbox store?A question about this GeOW 4 key fiasco. I bought one from here and redeemed it before they started revoking keys. Would I still be able to download it when the game is released?
WTB
Doom for PC - ~$25
.Doom (PS4/XBO/PC) is $20 at Newegg (code EMCENGT35) https://t.co/7ZCZqB2WMu
Did you redeem it on the Microsoft/Xbox store?
I had a feeling this whole GoW4 thing was going to come to a head eventually.
My thoughts: To me, the Seller is always going to be responsible for any digital code that they sell. If you find an exploit, grab a bunch of keys, and then want to sell them, I think that's okay. BUT, if those keys get revoked, then you better be ready to refund all the money your received for them. I don't see how that part could even be an argument.
Now, if a Seller explicitly says that there is a chance that the codes may be revoked and they won't be responsible if they are? To me, that's a little more of a gray area. At that point, unless it's already widely known that the codes HAVE been revoked, then it isn't like the Buyer didn't know there was a chance it wouldn't work. The buyer knows for sure that there is a chance they may be revoked. On the other hand, I don't really like the idea of this becoming a thing we are okay with either. It has the potential to be a real mess to deal with and I don't know that it's something we even want to mess with.
If enough people want it, I think we could probably reword Rule #4 to include situations like this. I think the intent of that rule is already pretty much the same anyway, since we had a similar (not the same though) problem with MSDN keys and such. As always, I'm not just going to change the rules until we can get at least somewhat of a consensus on the subject though. That is, at least as much of a consensus as we can get without polling every single NeoGAF user like some people would like us to do before implementing rules.
It should be a strict requirement that the seller always accepts responsibility for selling exploit keys, no exceptions. We shouldn't entertain any ideas that it's okay to pass on the responsibility to the buyer with a "no refunds" disclaimer for two reasons. One, that's basically saying that it's okay for sellers to rip off buyers on the chance that a key may stop working. It will erode confidence in the community in the long run. And two, it will lead to situations where the seller may claim he gave warning and the buyer will claim there wasn't warning (or not sufficient enough warning)... in any case, it will lead to unnecessary disputes than if we just made it very simple and clear that a seller always refunds nonworking keys.