Yea, but they can also buy some new ones...they just decline to find a solution. They just want to resell their copy and receive double payment for the same game.
Original product would have stayed with you if you would have activated it, yes? So hard to see how they are at fault here, and basically deal had even middlehand. Usually middlehand would be responsible to you and original dealer to a middlehand, but product would have been ok if it would have been used like it should have. Service keeper didn't revoke used copies after all from what i know and basically it seems that they would be responsible for this, original owner didn't have any control over that decision and hold up the original deal as was promised. New copy is different product basically and has more content so it doesn't belong to the original deal even and it's kind of ridiculous people gang up and blame original owner of being a scammer and using reputation system unfairly while it seems noisy side is the one doing that exactly.
TL;DR: Everyone should remove their -rep and move on, as this is just ridiculous.
What is that hard to understand ? He got my keys for a a product, then that product is revoked by his provider of the game. Now he has a better version of the game that he could easily sell for a better price (10-12$, mentioning that he already got 8-10$ from the battle edition). He does not want to give the better version of the game that he received...I'm ok with that...but instead I don't have the game anymore nor the money. Yea I could also easily activate that game, but I can do whatever I want with that copy since I payed for it. Maybe somebody actually forgot to activate it after he bought the game...That is not a scam if the seller does not want to solve the problem in a civilizate way ?
Also the seller could ask for a game or some addition of money for the new version, but instead he is selling the copy to somebody else and receive 20-22$ for a single game that is worth 12$ (and he will receive some more games at the end of the month).
Those negative reviews will not be removed. This is madness. The seller and the buyer should understand that it's not their fault for this mass revoke and return each other what they deserve ( refund/game to buyer / addition of money to seller for the new version).
So basically it wasn't redeemed and due that not usable anymore. They got two different copies and sold right of the first one for you which you didn't use and have no right on the other one as it wasn't open during time of the deal and has more content. It's up to them if they want to give new one with little extra for you or "full price". They didn't have control over HB revocation of unused or your decision of not using the game copy. If the game copy would have been all around revoked even when activated the matter would have been different.
They bought the bundle so of course they have full right for those products until they change the owner. Starter edition became yours, but they still do have right to keep standard edition and all that's included in HBM incoming games. Would be weird if later early unlocks and unlocks would belong to same deal if it wasn't ordered to be so. If someone forgot to activate it, well then it's their issue as they forgot not the seller. o.o' We had plenty of revocations with unused keys affected while used keys staying with the owners, it's personal risk one takes, simple as that.
return each other what they deserve
Well they wouldn't get anything back from you would they? Would seem reasonable indeed if all copies were revoked, but in this case just can't see justified to gang up on new trader on the site with group of older users and affecting public opinion unfairly towards new fellow. Along side with What kind of community is this?. It's your fault for not using the copy, HB is known for disliking trading/reselling so it's not that surprising they did do this, but they did it quite wrong way nonetheless. Stupid decision to add content later on as different package and revoke older unused ones.
So basically you think that it's my fault. They got the same game, it is not other game. I payed for the base game which is back to him. Is it not normal that my money should come back to me aswell ? Is it normal to sell the same game (copy) to 2 different persons ? If they got a new copy for standard edition that does not mean that is a new game, it's just the base game(that he should not have it, because he sold it) with the zombie dlc.
"Well they wouldn't get anything back from you would they?"
They got the game back, what should I gave them ? I gave the money, then also the game returned to them. If they return the game to buyer ( the seller got the game in a better version, the buyer have the money back...that's equality / if the seller return the game to buyer then : the seller receives initial payment + additional payment for dlc / buyer receives the game, again equality).
The title of this thread was added for my negative review received as a revenge for letting other people that he is a scammer. And 27 people agreed that my negative review should remain, based on nothing. That's the real thing buddy.
Just picked up this myself and only going to focus on one point, and not say anything about whatever else you got going on.
You have every right to leave a - rep for a trade that has gone wrong, that's your right. However, getting a bunch of other people that had absolutely nothing to do with the trade to leave their - rep's seems like a groupmentality, and it against fair trading on every sense of the word. They had nothing to do with the trade, so they should have absolutely no place on placing any sort of rep on this case.
It is a witchhunt at this point and if these forums would be as adequately moderated as steamgifts for an example or any other public forums, people would be receiving a warning for this sort of action.
And yeah, the matter of revoked key would be investigated as well in a lot of forums, given that you could point the proof, but not going there myself. Only though to mention that you should think yourself, nothing more. Leave your negative rep since it's your right. Don't drag more people into the situation, especially since they have nothing to do with the said situation.
I haven't told anyone to leave -rep on other's profile. They simply saw what happened and the way he was talking and added negative review. This should be moderated and these problems should be easily solved...but without moderators, there are just greedy people that want to sell the same game to multiple guys. Those kind of traders should be eliminated and that negative mass of reviews would be also terminated. I just want fairness.
Also revenge negative review it's against rules but 30 people voted to allow it.
This is just my take on it. I am not here to argue about it, or correct others, just totally my take, and as for the voting part, I skipped all the votes related to BO4.
This, even though being a bad move from humble, is actually not humble's fault. I am not saying this bundle was good or anything, I am just saying that what they did is totally fine, they gave new keys to people for their own use, or their family's use. Not for re-trading. Just wanted to say this out to people who would be blaming humble bundle for this.
Coming to my take on whether a person should refund or not.
Now, say 2 persons are there, Person "A" and "B". "A" took game from "B". Whatever the intention of "A" being for that game, to resell, to retrade, to use it for himself, to gift it to his grandpa, to save it for his future generation, doesn't matter.
"A" Took game from "B", "A" paid "B" for the same. Trade is finished. +rep to both.
Now, a case where genuine refund is valid is when the game gets revoked due to fake payments. Clearly evident that this is not the case with BO4 as keys were either revoked, or if activated, then additional keys were supplied to original person, in my example, "B".
According to me, "B" Fullfilled his promise to "A" which was only valid for that trade. Now if "A" gets his key revoked and stuff like that due to humble's changes in the early unlock, then it is a liability of "A" to deal with that, or suffer a loss.
"B" was only interested in selling the original early unlock, which he did and the matter is over. "B" is not responsible for whatever happens later on with that (unless ofcourse, it is a fake payment or something like that. In short, game gets revoked/changed due to B's fault, then it's B's mistake, otherwise no).
This whole scenario to me feels like a childish balderdash.
Look at the following example.
I bought a piece of land from my friend. Then floods occur, my land is totally destroyed, becomes barren and can no longer support vegetation, construction, anything. Basically gone. And due to same floods, the other pieces of land becomes usable and are healthy pieces of land. The flood was due to god (even if you don't believe in god, just think of some terrible luck or something. Of course its not my friend's fault that floods occurred). Now my friend gets a free piece of land there. Would I go saying that, "Hey you sold me the land it got destroyed, give me your land ?". Ofcourse no. What right do I have to ask for a refund ? It was due to floods which no one could avoid. If its done its done, bad investment.
Now think of Humble as the "God" in our scenario.
I bought BO4 from a guy hoping it will be good and remain alive. Due to humble, the game gets revoked (just assume revoked for now). The seller gets his game back. I just cannot go claiming that I should get the new one. New one will have new price from the seller. If one is that interested in it, he/she can again buy for a higher (and full) price. If not interested, think of it as a loss and move on. Its basically like if I am not able to profit from something, I go back asking for a full refund.
The main point here is that, the seller is not at fault, for which the buyer is asking him for a refund. Only time a refund is valid is when the seller is at fault.
All I think is that this balderdash is stupid. Ofcourse it hurts when one loses his money and stuff. But hey, if one wanted the game so bad, why not purchase the monthly itself ? Definitely one wanted something for cheap. Now if that cheap turns out to be bad, its that "one's" guy fault, not the seller. Go claim humble for that issue for which (as i said before) one'll be thrown out just on the fact that retrading or reselling of games is prohibited and not allowed by humble.
This was my take. If one wants to interpret this in a bad way, that may be. If one does not agree with me, its okay. If one agrees with me, its okay then as well.
I don't think there is any sort of clarification that is needed in my view which I wrote, so rather than having a debate here, I'd like that one just ignores this if he/she doesn't agree. I prefer not having that unread reply count on my message.
Edit : Oh and yeah, OP, please don't take it as something I wrote in favor or against you. I just wanted to vent this off, and is my general perspective. Just saw your thread regarding the same. I personally do not have any comments regarding your case. Saw a thread with BO4 scenario and thought i'd get this off.
Just had to leave one final reply in this thread, Kudos for wise words and pretty much how i try to treat my trades when and if i do any trading at all.
In your example "your friend" does not receive a NEW LAND, it's the same land that you have bought from him but with a little more surface. So basically you got the land and then he comes with other buyer and give him your land + and addition of surface, claiming that he gave you that but he's not responsable if the land became his again meanwhile. If we're talking about rules from HB, he should not sell his copy to somebody, from then he should assume a responsability...if the copy will not work, then it's he's fault. HB provided a new giftlink for THEIR use (ZOMBIE DLC), NOT A NEW GAME. This month only had one game : COD BO4 STANDARD EDITION, not COD BO4 BATTLE EDITION AND COD BO4 STANDARD EDITION. Instead they are just selling one more time the same game for a higher price.
I can accept everything, letting him have that game, giving more money for the game...but they saw the opportunity and they are making free profit on us.
I understand your opinion, but I think it's not fully developed and right. However...I also have to refund the game to someone else and I will do it. I assume what I was selling.
Thank you for sharing your opinion !
Based on Humble's official twitter response :
"Paid early for Battle Edition? All you need to do is redeem the Standard Edition key on your download page and you're all set for zombie slaying fun!
If you redeemed before today, you will have a new key that adds Zombies. If you haven't redeemed, you'll have one for the entire Black Ops 4 Standard Edition."
My example was based on the latter case. If the gift link was made and the other party has not redeemed it yet, then I assume it fits in the latter case. In fact, my entire comment was based on the latter case. Probably should have mentioned that. Since I am a reseller, I only thought of that case, the other case where the dlc key was given did not cross my mind.
Well in that case, I doubt the original seller will be able to do anything with the dlc type key which he/she got and would most likely not have much choice except trading it again with you or the original buyer, whoever it is.
Now, if I was in the former case where I got the extra dlc key that added zombie mode, I'd just give it away for free. That key has no meaning whatsoever and can't be traded for any value, so maybe in that case people are acting badly. But in the case where the full game was given, then I will still hold on to my point (and will believe that my example was correct for latter case).
Anyways, I am glad you brought that to my attention. Totally forgot about the 2 cases of BO4.
I saw his name, his attitude, but my problem is why there are so many encouraging that revenge review without any proof added to it ? There are 32 guys that think it was a right negative reputation given.
"Who insists to not repay is just faggot on my viewspoint."
That is inconsistent with everything I've heard and seen regarding homosexuality. To my knowledge, sexuality has nothing with trading.
He obviously meant:
faggot
/ˈfaɡət/
a bundle of sticks bound together as fuel.
You must not have heard, but hate terms aren't slang. They're just hate. I bet you could find an appropriate term to use if you try hard enough.
Btw, I won't keep this going. I've had enough of stupid words. It was not a problem for homosexuals until towards end of 20th century as it appears. Next time before accusing someone think better. I am not craving for to insult homosexuals. You are coming with an idea of finding an appropriate word but it is obvious that it is a slang which is a quite offensive but if I was to use retarded or moron they would offend someone aswell. If I used twat then someone would come with a woman's genital. Whatever...
My bad to go this far. People are on edge. They are stupid, anyone who defends them also stupid.
My opinion in TLDR : I won't take any step back. You can't force people to activate their games. Why the hell a seller should activate their game which is sold?
"My opinion in TLDR : I won't take any step back. You can't force people to activate their games. Why the hell a seller should activate their game which is sold?"
I didn't really say that at all, just for the record. Nor imply it. I think the person who received payment should return the payment, or the buyer should offer a couple dollars extra for the now upgraded version. That is simple, fair, and a win for both parties in both cases.
I do think there is a cap on how long you should expect a second hand key to be good though, regardless. I definitely don't think a person should be culpable for revocations that happen a reasonable amount of time afterwards. This is also why I don't bother going down the reseller path. Every key I have is one I acquired directly from whichever store, and I find that prevents a lot of problems. Personally, everything I get out of trading goes to my library, or in the case of CSGO/TF2 keys and stuff, allows me to buy games I would really like w/o being more out of pocket. Basically it just helps fund my own gaming hobby.
Besides, if Otaku/GoGo/etc....Humble running out of Spidey keys....Humble replacing CoD keys.....etc...has taught me anything, it's that there is a finite amount of time that keys can be expected to be good, and I personally expect a lot more of these situations to play out before people realize that things are changing as far as how publishers and developers handle keys they dispense. I'm interested to see how this trends. Steam and Humble definitely dont advocate or appreciate trading keys, and we know a fair amount of bundle devs have no qualms about revoking unused (and even used at times) keys for whatever reason. I'm curious to see if this trend continues to develop.
My interlocutor was not you there tbh, it was more like a general TLDR which would help people to unders tf is going on. Had to remove all of the comments eventually, I do not want people to sit read all of this nonsense.
I already have read your comment. I don't fully agree nor fully deny it. If a game is revoked of course it's sellers problem. I had to refund all of my Kingdom Come Deliverence keys due to revocation. And I am dealing with a guy that insists not to refund me because he is scammed by another dude. Ignoring won't help on this aswell. However, the options are very limited. That's why traders united against them. You know them by names.
I literally had 12 copies and ONLY GOT 2 back. Yeah, from 12 copies I got 2 back. One guy went rogue, other one is not responding, one is literally declined while another one claims it is used on his account (not on purpose). 2 didn't accepted my friendship yet and I don't even remember other half. This is a deep crap on my side so I can't really find any force to deal with this. They can shove their game up to anywhere they want. It's my bad to not claim my copies but I shouldn't be charged for this aswell because when you get their copy, you'd expect them to give up on it. If not, that's just more greedy than resellers. Personally, I am not a giftlink reseller. I just buy some extra copies in trades and maybe trade with more reputable dudes in the future, helps me to buy games in sales aswell. Not going to cry because of this. I won't try to find anyone to accuse aswell. Of course IGN (or Humble let's say) is not responsible for this because we are not expected to sell our copies. Selling this copies on gray markets are forbidden aswell. Yet, this is the first time sth like this and messed with all of us.
Edit: I don't fully know how bad the situation is tho. I know that unredeemed copies went to the void, literally wasted. But if the game is activated? Some people claimed they were able to generate another gift link. If they got 2 version of BO4 in a one bundle, gosh what a bullshit. If their game is revoked from Battle.net it's just another problem.
No one asked for this, wasn't expecting either. I guess they should have added the zombies as an dlc or sth. They already sell battle edition seperately and I bet they could create sth for zombies. Revoking creates issues. Always.
Yeah. It's a pretty crazy situation for sure.
...and that definitely sucks. That kind of volume isn't something most people can afford to take a loss on like that. It is definitely shitty that people won't even consider sorting it out.
I've voted to remove all reviews of people who did not trade with each other, skipped the vote for the cases where it was not explicitly stated that the key would be used by the person receiving it, and voted to remove one review I saw where the person receiving it claimed he would enjoy the game, therefore implying that he actually was going to redeem it himself.
My reasoning behind this is that if the person trading BO4 traded with somebody who did redeem the game within the time period, they would be allowed to keep the payment/game they received in return since those keys would not be revoked. By trading with resellers they are now being forced to fully pay back everything they got for their copy, which means that they would be the ones to pay the price of not getting anything for their initial copy even though they traded it when it was a valid key, while the reseller doesn't lose anything. The fact remains that the reseller was given a valid key at the time of the trade and his decision not to activate it is what resulted in this situation. The expectation of every reseller that the other person should fully compensate this for something neither of them could have seen coming but could only be prevented by the reseller himself is strange to me but they did get screwed by how it worked out so I just decided not to vote on those reviews.
For the other reviews, I for sure don't think this is a clear enough case of a person being a scammer that 5 -reps are fair, so I voted to remove the reviews of all the other people who -repped in support, as well as the revenge reviews that followed those. And finally, if the person receiving the game implied or said that he would use the game himself I see no reason why he should be compensated, because if he was true to his word there would not have been a problem.
That's a valid point. The person trading the game to begin with has honoured their side of things. Due to the other party being traders it is on them should anything happen afterwards.
You're right. By the time it comes to "return" what was traded the original game may have devalued. Why should traders benefit from cheap offers (as they all are, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to do it) and then the original trader gets shafted should something happen further down the line. Becoming forced to take back a game that is now worth less than when they traded it.
It's a big old can of worms that wouldn't happen if these people weren't exploiting HB in the first place. Normally I wouldn't care too much about reselling, but this particular instance is fairly unusual from what I can recall of being a subscriber for several years.
Why would they buy the monthly if they are not interested in the first reveal of it ? They are sellers, but now when it is a big problem the whole thing changed. They call us resellers, but at the time they sold us the copies they already know that. And also the game that they received back is more valuable than the first deal. So they could easily get their money back + an addition if they refund to the first trader.
Thank you for sharing this ! I know that these negative reputation if you did not trade with him personally should not be given, but this is a warning signal for other traders, because some of them might ignore that -rep and still trade with them, when there are many -reps, they will surely not get caught in scammer's trap.
I will personally remove all my negative reviews (my only negative reviews were given last days for COD BO4 scam) if the problems are solved by both parts.
The problem with your reasoning is that in this case the -rep is given for a situation that it is very unlikely to happen again. If he traded with somebody who did activate the game there would have been no problem, and it's not like his key got revoked because of something he did. Therefore, I don't see this as an indication that he's more likely to scam in the future so to me there's no point in -repping him to prevent him from trading anymore. He kept his end of the deal and when HB screwed over people who hadn't activated the game, the game was no longer his.
Some kind of agreement with a partial refund could maybe be found between the two but him giving a full refund for a situation that isn't his fault does not seem fair to me either.
If you activated the game at the time of swapping, then that person you traded with doesn't owe you the extra content if it gets changed later. The deal was met. It is their choice as to whether the extra content is given, and I would not judge it badly if they choose not to.
You, obviously, are a trader, and that makes it trickier. When a key is revoked, as COD BO 4 was, it should mean a new copy is given. However, the extra content in this particular instance now means that the previous deal may not be fair, and a new one should be reached.
They owe you a copy of the battle edition of COD, but it is not that edition anymore - so you owe them extra, for the extra content.
If you can't agree on what that extra content is worth over the original deal, then that could be an issue.
What they return to you should be what was originally given if the extra content means the value has gone up, BUT if the value has gone down....well, why should it be on them that you didn't activate it immediately? If the value has gone down since then, they should only return what the game is currently worth. You want the benefits of trading these games for more than they cost you, then you should also incur the negatives - not the original trader who met their side of the deal at the time of the trade.
As for your friends negative repping them...well, I get the reasons why they did it, but personally I have voted to remove those reviews (despite some of them coming from people I have traded with) The only persons, in my book, who can rate positive / negative on a transaction are the two people it took place between. Both parties should provide evidence, and not base the review on hearsay - which it can only be when others are chiming in, as it didn't happen to them.
You can't say "oh! I had a revenge review" and then do the same yourselves. If you insist the rules must be stuck to....then stick to the rules yourselves. If you didn't personally trade with that user, and you leave a review - I see it as breaking the rules. In this instance I feel that that has happened, and voted accordingly. Your review I voted to leave, whereas the others got the vote to be removed.
The copy from him was not activated. I can add some more for the new version of the game, but he already sold the game to other trader, so he can't provide me the game and he also refused to give me the keys back for the initial deal.
I was giving that -rep on his profile based on a scam that he has done. Those traders should be banned from this community (not only based on that "scam", but also look at his nickname, his review where he insulted us based on nothing...he does not know anything about me).
The negative review that I received is based on nothing...I did not scam anyone, I did not insult him.
That -rep I left is a warning for this community because there is nobody to stop them at the moment.
Thank you for replying !
As for the trade: sounds fair that you are owed a copy of the game, or the return of what you paid for it. I support your negative rep in this case.
But those who negative repped and were not involved - they get the vote for the chop from me. Rules are rules: you can only pick and choose what to follow if you are a hypocrite, and if you don't follow them all then why should people accept a stance that you only take when it suits you?
His / her name would be enough to make me think twice about trading with them, regardless of negative reviews (that have a basis in reality at least) Their username is offensive, but what has that got to do with whether they are a reliable trader?
There is a person up above who casually tossed around the word faggot - what makes them any better than someone whose user name has a racial slur? does them being a reliable trader somehow mitigate using homophobic insults? "Hmm - what review do I give? The guy is a paedo / animal shagger / wife beater / homophobe / other kind of social deviant, or is offensive to me in some way, but hey! They didn't stiff me on a trade, so a positive review it is!"
Did your original review of this transaction take into account that their user name was a racial slur, or did it not matter up until the point the trade went bad later on? I don't want SuckItN***** showing on my friends list, as it's a distasteful name to choose, but that says nothing about whether they are reliable.
Let the facts speak for themselves, and the only facts needed are about the trade.
In one word , shit . I got 1 negative rep on my profile because a shitface tried to scamm me so I gave him a negative review , then he instantly revenge reported me for no reason. The community deleted his negative post meanwhile mine who actually did nothing , got the mark.
( he already got more - reps since then ... guess why)
So im on that point , where I dont give a sh*t about the reputation system . ( sorry I know it has nothing to do with your problem)
I can see your point and Im totally with you , but ppl are full of bullshit even here... sad.
I got curious so I read your -rep. If trading for profit was something you could be reported for on Steamtrades a lot more people would have -reps, but it (rightfully) isn't so it's no wonder his -rep got removed. Your report accused somebody of attempting to scam by making an offer that would make him a profit. Those are not the same thing.
That being said, I don't think the -rep on your profile should have been kept on there but you did start the situation yourself.
Yea but as others mentioned , he is very rude and made me to do it since he is charging a lot for his profit...wanted to warn others to stay away from him. People are just barely care about of these situations thats for sure. But he got those reports so I dont care anymore..
Thanks for your time to read it!
Hey, with the risk of insulting you. I read the situation, and I think you are 100% in the wrong. He can ask for his games what he wants, and you have a right to agree or turn it down. That was no place to leave a negative review, regardless of whether he was overcharging or not. I also agree that your negative rep should have stayed, because giving someone -rep for asking more than you want to pay is a dick move and should be discouraged. Take it for what little it is worth, no offense intended.
The main thing I want to say for this whole debacle is that I strongly disagree with the revenge/friend -rep from both sides.
MikeC leaving his -rep is warranted because he felt he suffered a loss - the other party can dispute this but that is between them and for the community to vote, anything more is out of line as per forum rules.
He suffered nothing. Look at him. He does not even leave a reply on his negative reviews, he is arrogant and now he has friends that helps him to make more positive reviews. I did not insult him in his thread, I just warned him that he should not scam, instead he came to me and -repped me and also insulted me. This should not go like that, with negative reviews from others, but those are just rude people that surely deserves more than these -reps.
I meant you leaving a negative rep is correct because you felt you suffered a loss, not the person who traded you the BO4 copy. It's your right to have your say on a trade you felt unsatisfied with.
My point is that these negative reviews should be taken more seriously, but if unrelated people start -repping "for their friends" or in retaliation, as this case has prompted, it just undermines the whole system even more than it already is.
Hearsay is not fact. Everyone other than you and the other trader that leaves a -rep to comment on the situation is out of line.
I removed my negative review from that guy's profile. It is just a waste of time, 39 people still voted to allow his revenge review even if it's not allowed in the rules of the voting system.
Resellers have to be lowballers in order to make any profit, which doesn't really make other traders enamored of them. So, that is a knock against a lot (not all) resellers. The current swell of resellers working together to give neg rep for trades they DID NOT make is abusing the system the same as the people they are neg repping. That should stop. Someone could easily host a known scammer thread instead, and I personally would bump it every time I was on ST,
However, as it pertains to CoD4, both sides of this argument as it is being presented, are wrong.
The reseller doesn't really have the right to expect even more from a trade than they would have gotten from the initial agreement. However, they also should receive something for their keys or PP. Obviously, the best scenario is for the person who handed out the CoD4 code to just return the payment they received for the game since they otherwise received something for nothing, which isn't fair. However, as an alternative, resellers should also be offering 2 or 3 extra keys for the now more valuable version as payment for the balance of value. Either way works out perfectly. Doing neither leads to the current drama.
As one further note regarding revoked keys in general. As a reseller, you do assume the risk if you are holding on to these keys for an extended period of time. I personally feel like the seller should hold responsibility for their keys for a few weeks, but after that, their part of the deal was upheld in good faith and if a dev or bundle site decides to revoke a keys after that, it's no longer on the original owner of the key. It should (and is IMO) considered the resellers problem for not reselling it in an adequate period of time. Otherwise, everything is hinged in favor of resellers, who already largely dictate trade values and such.
I did not hold his copy, I have sold it and I also have to refund it. What should I do now ? Ignore the buyer and not giving him what he payed for ? I'm not holding those kind of games.
Unfortunately in this instance it is complicated by the evidence (not a huge amount, admittedly) that Humble actually gave out two full sets of keys.
Possibly because they couldn't just hand out the Zombies content by itself, and that Humble simply expects the person activating it this second time to be the same person who activated it the first time around (their rules of use, or some misguided faith in humanity)
My own experience is that it certainly seemed like the key could be activated twice. The one person I've heard back about, in the same position, said that they sold the first key and then activated the second for themselves. So: they are either going to have an irate person saying why doesn't my key work (because for whatever reason they waited), or.....both times it was the full game handed out.
If it's the latter - people who bought that first copy could abuse it, and claim that they're owed another copy, getting a two for one deal. How is the person who originally traded it supposed to prove otherwise? That for me is the real issue, and why I can't wholly back those resellers / traders who feel hard done by (though I do feel they have a point if it's legitimate the key wasn't activated)
Should remove that, since it was a mistake from me to think this is a fair community. It is full of kids and cunts. I'm done with this.
Vote in progress. 70% of users voted to remove this review (88/125 votes). FOR NOTHING.
READ DESCRIPTION !
Lightfish - 750 gems
Airport Madness Time Machine - 750 gems
ZOOICIDE - 600 gems
gems
So there's an entire madness with those people that deny to refund the payment for COD BO4 Battle Edition. Is impossible to be fair here ? You sold a copy of BO4 Battle Edition to somebody, for example you got 5 keys for it. Then HB decided to revoke those COD keys (remember that if someone buy something from you, from then that thing is his thing, he can do whatever he want, including keeping it until he decide what to do with it) , so basically you got your game back but you also have those keys, you can SELL IT again for a better price. Why would you not refund the keys that you received for a game that came back to you ? And why are so many people encouraging those scammers ? I received my first ever negative review because I also added a negative review on a scammer's profile to make sure nobody will trade with him. It is something else if you see only 1 negative review on a profile, many traders ignore 1 negative review, but when there are more negative reviews, the trader is aware that he should not trade with that guy.
I have left a reply on my negative review so the community can vote to remove it because we have not trade and I did not scammed anyone here. I was not thinking that the community can be full of kids that are encouraging scammers and revenge reviews.
20 people, 31% of them agreed that I deserve a negative review. Also in his negative review he told me that I'm a "Greedy seller" (remember that I did not scammed anyone, I just want fairness).
Here's the statistics for now : Vote in progress. 69% of users voted to remove this review (44/64 votes).
Maybe somebody can tell me how is this possible.