Dissatisfied customer

[ErryK]

Getting the money anyway doesn't matter to them when you signed a contract upon account creation that your money is theirs once a transaction has gone through. Being cordial to your customers is one thing, but most customers if not all of them don't read the ToS/ToU until AFTER an infraction has been made to their account/against their account or they're told they're wrong.

[Tremara]

First of all, OP is not the victim. He made a mistake and SE is not obliged to help him.
It's unfortunate that SE custom service isn't more helpful and friendly towards their customers but ppl should really stop suggesting a charge back. A charge back should only be used if he wouldn't recieve the subsription but he does have a active sub - just on the wrong account which is his fault. If OP is using a charge back OP would owe SE the payment and SE has the right to ban his accounts and in theory demand the payment. It could get way more expensive in the end. (I doubt that SE would demand the payment with the help of a lawyer/collection agency but you'll never know...)

[Kaethra]

It could get way more expensive in the end. (I doubt that SE would demand the payment with the help of a lawyer/collection agency but you'll never know...)

That actually wouldn't go well for SE. They'd have to prove services were rendered. And that is where the problem is. You can't make a 'I gotcha' EULA (never mind the fact that there is no signature actually signed) and expect to keep money like that. The deal is the user pays for a sub, SE allows them to login to the game account. If the user is unable to login, then said service has not been delivered. They'd have to prove somehow that the user logged in to the game at least once.

There's a reason why chargebacks aren't pursued by MMO companies. But they can ban said account and do not have to reopen it. There's nothing saying that they HAVE to do business with an individual. That's where SE's rights come in as a commercial entity.

MMO subs are based on trust mostly. Trust in the company will not simply take your money and run. And trust in the user that they won't play the game then chargeback. The issue comes in is how credit card companies view it. Normally they don't give a care where you spend you credit as long as you pay your bills or have money in the account (if debit). But they don't like the chargebacks. It puts them at risk, a risk they are obligated to you to take. So when a company (like My.com or Trion) has a number of them. They usually cut them out entirely. Best case scenario, they warn users over the phone when such purchases are made, worst case scenario they just ban such purchase entirely, forcing users to use Paypal or something else. To put it shortly, when a business is high risk, they simply don't wish to deal with them anymore.

I cannot confirm or deny the claims of others in the thread about the reddit with people getting banned from unintentional chargebacks. But if that's true, SE could see the likes of Trion and My.com and that's not a great situation to be in. It doesn't just affect FFXIV, but their other games too.

The best thing for SE to do is simply help their customer in this situation. It costs them nothing. It makes a customer happy. And raises their appeal in the market. There's no reason for pointless bureaucracy. Its not fair to say 'his fault he made a mistake'. Mistakes can be corrected so both parties are happy, that's what matters. And its not like SE doesn't make mistakes here and there that we mostly forgive.

The question is, does SE want continued business from said person? That's a binary question with a yes or no answer.

[Tremara]

That actually wouldn't go well for SE. They'd have to prove services were rendered. And that is where the problem is. You can't make a 'I gotcha' EULA (never mind the fact that there is no signature actually signed) and expect to keep money like that. The deal is the user pays for a sub, SE allows them to login to the game account. If the user is unable to login, then said service has not been delivered. They'd have to prove somehow that the user logged in to the game at least once.

Sry, but that's BS. SE provides the service aka you're allowed to use the server. You can check that at Mogstation - that and only that has SE to provide if you buy gametime. It's not the responsibility of SE that a customer has a working PC or choose the right account.

[Lexia]

The deal is the user pays for a sub, SE allows them to login to the game account.

This right here

Sry, but that's BS. SE provides the service aka you're allowed to use the server. You can check that at Mogstation - that and only that has SE to provide if you buy gametime. It's not the responsibility of SE that a customer has a working PC or choose the right account.

A persons pays for the ability/right to log into the game whether or not they have that equipment is not SE responsibility.

[Darkstride]

That actually wouldn't go well for SE. They'd have to prove services were rendered.

Service has been rendered. The OP made the mistake of paying for service on an account they do not use. It isn't SE's obligation to make sure a person pays attention to the account they are using or has the available hardware to utilize the service. The service was paid for on an account for access to the servers, and that account has access to the servers. The OP is not a victim here, they just have to accept the unfortunate consequences of their mistake.

[Kaethra]

Service has been rendered.

I'd like to see the evidence of this. What you've been espousing would never hold up in a chamber of commerce. And I'm sure the OP can also make a claim with the BBB. And as I've said before, his bank/credit union would back him as well if he really wanted that money back.

Legality has nothing to do with this. Its good sense, community, society, and trust. That's what every organization I just listed is about. Its weird and sad that you cannot (or more specifically choose not to) comprehend that and would like to see an innocent suffer for an honest mistake.

[Nixxe]

I'd like to see the evidence of this. What you've been espousing would never hold up in a chamber of commerce. And I'm sure the OP can also make a claim with the BBB. And as I've said before, his bank/credit union would back him as well if he really wanted that money back.

Legality has nothing to do with this. Its good sense, community, society, and trust. That's what every organization I just listed is about. Its weird and sad that you cannot (or more specifically choose not to) comprehend that and would like to see an innocent suffer for an honest mistake.

The BBB is just a nonprofit organization of questionable value and has no actual authority.

[Kaethra]

The BBB is just a nonprofit organization of questionable value and has no actual authority.

I've used them in the past with unresolved situations such as this. Usually with favorable results.

[Nixxe]

I've used them in the past with unresolved situations such as this. Usually with favorable results.

lol

Their entire business model is to basically take advantage of an undeserved reputation they've managed to establish through marketing and hold businesses hostage with the threat of a bad rating, despite their ratings being meaningless and mostly the product of paying dues or not to the BBB. A large and well established company like SE, which isn't even based in the US, has little reason to care what the BBB says.