|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 8:20AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
That would be a great service but that might not be one that digital river is offering to WotC.
dr is just the company that gets your creditcard number, and sends how much you paid to wotc. everything else is done by wotc.
so if they wanted to have such or any other system in place, it falls to their management to decide, and their developers to implement.
DR does not in any case, have something to do with your accounts, expiration dates, renewal cycles, payment methods etc. these are all decisions by wotc management.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 11:48AM
#42
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
- Dragon Slayer
- D&DI News Guide
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2005
|
[i] I am the voice of 10 thousand ticked off customers who don't come to these boards
You are the voice of one person, just like anyone else here.
You represent yourself, just as I represent myself, and the next person themselves, etc.
You're entitled to your opinion, but try to keep the vitriol and hyperbole to a minimum, it only serves to enflame tempers more often than not.
Wolf Star76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide  Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 11:52AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2007
|
You are the voice of one person, just like anyone else here.
You represent yourself, just as I represent myself, and the next person themselves, etc.
You're entitled to your opinion, but try to keep the vitriol and hyperbole to a minimum, it only serves to enflame tempers more often than not.
If he did that, how would I know who to put on ignore?
—fo diggity
Twitter: www.twitter.com/fodigg
Comic Books You Should Have Read: http://tinyurl.com/ycxe9l7
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 3:27PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2003
|
You are the voice of one person, just like anyone else here.
Of course given the trend in site traffic ever during Gleemax's launch and subsequent crash and burn, he might be on to something with tons of people leaving and not coming back. I'd be really curious if the DDI launch (incomplete and late as it might be) might have changed the trend observed during the Gleemax period.
Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 7:41PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2007
|
They. Screwed. Up.
That doesn't make it a "scam".
Seriously you can't be saying they did this on accident this is a blatant attempt to delay cancellations there's simply no other reason for it. can you seriously with a straight face imagine the conversation on this issue. So the auto renew function here is how it will work (Plug current auto renew ) and everyone at the table says ya that sounds good we should totally pay someone to cancel subscriptions I mean there's no way we could automate something like that.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 8:19PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2006
|
I don't know if it's a deliberate scam, but it's certainly a decision that's hard to explain. Why make extra work for yourselves if you don't need to.
FWIW, I was intending to give things a three month trial, and then look at a full year after that based on how the three months testing went. But if I'm going to have to risk my money on a manually processed auto renewal cancellation, then I'll save it and wait for back issues to become available if there's anything I want in them. Based on the overall performance to date, I'm not gambling my money on how well a cancellation works. I'm afraid that given how WotC has handled things so far I'd end up paying for two subscriptions.
First thing for people working on providing new features should remember:
People hate change for the sake of change. They usually don't mind genuine improvements, but change just because it's change and therefore cool tends to get hackles raised.
Second thing for people working on providing new 'improved' features should remember:
It shouldn't be hard for users to figure out how to turn them off if they don't like them. Just because the programmer thinks he's had a great idea doesn't mean everyone else is going to agree with them.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 8:28PM
#47
|
|
|
Seriously you can't be saying they did this on accident this is a blatant attempt to delay cancellations there's simply no other reason for it. can you seriously with a straight face imagine the conversation on this issue. So the auto renew function here is how it will work (Plug current auto renew ) and everyone at the table says ya that sounds good we should totally pay someone to cancel subscriptions I mean there's no way we could automate something like that.
Considering all the other errors, it clearly can be an oversight.
Many things done and even released was poorly executed.
This clearly might be one of them.
What I have seen is often PR and Tech at odds on what was going to happen and when it would happen.
This could very well be another case of one department signing off on an idea that did not have feed back from other departments.
*shrugs*
I do not know if it was intentional or if somebody just thought it would be a good idea to have a chance to get people to change mind about quiting.
Plans are always subject to change.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 8:45PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2005
|
Seriously you can't be saying they did this on accident this is a blatant attempt to delay cancellations there's simply no other reason for it. can you seriously with a straight face imagine the conversation on this issue. So the auto renew function here is how it will work (Plug current auto renew ) and everyone at the table says ya that sounds good we should totally pay someone to cancel subscriptions I mean there's no way we could automate something like that.
I think they made a bad decision, viz "It's going to cost too much to develop an automated facility, and no one's going to care anyway so why waste the money. It'll be cheaper to have someone from accounting handle it." Often times a single exec can end up being the buckstop on that sort of thing. I've seen it happen. So, not an accident, but not fully considered either.
If they really wanted to AOL it, they'd have had it where people had to call them to give CS a chance to talk them out of cancelling.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 9:46PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2007
|
I think they made a bad decision, viz "It's going to cost too much to develop an automated facility, and no one's going to care anyway so why waste the money. It'll be cheaper to have someone from accounting handle it." Often times a single exec can end up being the buckstop on that sort of thing. I've seen it happen. So, not an accident, but not fully considered either.
If they really wanted to AOL it, they'd have had it where people had to call them to give CS a chance to talk them out of cancelling.
It's not like it's something new and exiting it's a freaking button that cancels your subscription. I seriously cant believe there's someone out there stupid enough to think it would be more expensive than paying someone to do it for the next x years.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2008 - 10:02PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2005
|
I find myself upset over this as well. If you don't require Human Interaction to initiate auto-renewal, then you shouldn't require Human Interaction to terminate auto-renewal.
I dunno... Maybe there is something about Digital River that requires this. Maybe WotC is just following the example of another company without recognizing how much this decision would irritate some people. Maybe something else that we don't know about is influencing this from a technical standpoint.
This may not be an unethical decision, but it certainly does feel like one.
|
|
|
