dr_octagon
Banned
That's totally different and nobody is advocating that (I mentioned that in the OP).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Consumer rights - EU does what American't
- Thread starter dr_octagon
- Start date
That's totally different and nobody is advocating that (I mentioned that in the OP).
Considering we have people in here wanting to get refunds on early access games because they're unoptimized and unfinished, I wouldn't doubt anything.
Plus, wasn't there that screen of someone abusing the UK's return system to get out of buying a game he just didn't end up liking (think it was a worms game)? Yeah...
dr_octagon
Banned
Early access games are clearly advertised as being unfinished and people should expect that. I hope people wouldn't take the piss but if it does happen, the seller can always refuse a refund.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Another law they need is to stop retailers advertising Sales that aren't sales and are the same price they was beforehand, I'm tired of it
For example Shopto Cyber Sunday is on today and its the same stuff and price those titles were a month ago, its a joke
And its not just Shopto either, Game does it but they never actually have any stock of the real good deals, even the company I work for does it, And I don't like it.
For example Shopto Cyber Sunday is on today and its the same stuff and price those titles were a month ago, its a joke
And its not just Shopto either, Game does it but they never actually have any stock of the real good deals, even the company I work for does it, And I don't like it.
thesaint08
Member
It will be interesting to see if Sony lock you out of PSN/SEN if you use your rights like they do currently if you initiate a chargeback when they won't refund.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
dr_octagon
Banned
added a terms and conditions section and further contact for Sony to OP
VibratingDonkey
Member
Codemasters CM said pre-release that GRID Autosport would not have microtransactions and failed to publicly correct this.
Weeks after my purchase of the game, Codemasters announced it will in fact have microtransactions.
Had I known this I would not have bought the game.
So I was looking to get a refund from GMG with the help of this new fancy legislation. But it appears a subsection offers them a loophole.
Is there something I'm missing or what am one supposed to do? I'm not a lawtalking guy.
GMG already has a "no refunds on distributed keys" policy, which the support rep reiterated to me before closing the ticket. So they don't seem particularly keen on good-will in these situations. I'll keep complaining at them regardless, but it'd be nice if I could fully commit to my bookthrowing.
Weeks after my purchase of the game, Codemasters announced it will in fact have microtransactions.
Had I known this I would not have bought the game.
So I was looking to get a refund from GMG with the help of this new fancy legislation. But it appears a subsection offers them a loophole.
That sounds great up until 7a. I don't quite understand why it matters whether or not the trader knew I'd been misled by the producer to purchase the digital content. The trader is not responsible for the misleading statement, but surely that shouldn't prevent me from getting a refund in this case? If producers can say whatever faulty nonsense they want and traders can just go "we didn't know, lol" then that's kind of shitty. That's like anti-protection.
Is there something I'm missing or what am one supposed to do? I'm not a lawtalking guy.
GMG already has a "no refunds on distributed keys" policy, which the support rep reiterated to me before closing the ticket. So they don't seem particularly keen on good-will in these situations. I'll keep complaining at them regardless, but it'd be nice if I could fully commit to my bookthrowing.
At the time of the sale to you (time of contract) the shop (trader) had no reason to believe the game (product) was not as described by the manufacturer/publisher. The game was microtransaction free at the time of sale and for a while after, just as described, so it was not defective.
If there are subsequent changes to the online portion, those are likely governed by the terms of service you sign when you create an online account for that game.
VibratingDonkey
Member
That's the kind of thing I expect GMG to say when they eventually start consulting their legal team after X days of back and forth.
Before actually reading the relevant section of the bill, I thought this would be pretty straightforward. Oh well, at least I've learned something.
I am not protected from changes made to a game after release which make it faulty/not as advertised/etc.
I am only protected from misleading statements by the producer if the trader could reasonably have been aware of them at the time of purchase.
So, if it's pointless to pursue this from a legal angle, how would one avoid this kind of situation in the future?
This is stupid. The only entity being held responsible for me being misled, is me. How is that fair?
Birgitte2004
Member
I am one of those people who don't feel people should get a refund on a buggy game unless it's flat unplayable.
It's not because I'm pro-corporation, it's because I don't believe there's a solution that both does what it intends to do and has no repurcussions that hurt the consumer.
If all you have to do is label things, that accomplishes nothing.
On the other end of the spectrum if you start punishing software creators for the most minor bugs Software writers will just close up shop, because it won't be profitable anymore.
It is exceptionally hard to define the middle-ground properly.
*EDIT* And comparisons to things like Toasters just cloud the issue. Basic software is orders of magnitude more complicated than a Toaster is, so is orders of magnitude harder to get right.
It's not because I'm pro-corporation, it's because I don't believe there's a solution that both does what it intends to do and has no repurcussions that hurt the consumer.
If all you have to do is label things, that accomplishes nothing.
On the other end of the spectrum if you start punishing software creators for the most minor bugs Software writers will just close up shop, because it won't be profitable anymore.
It is exceptionally hard to define the middle-ground properly.
*EDIT* And comparisons to things like Toasters just cloud the issue. Basic software is orders of magnitude more complicated than a Toaster is, so is orders of magnitude harder to get right.
I guess what needs to be fixed is the transparency regarding a product's initial description, I'm sure it has to be flexible since software poducts ever changing goods but I don't think they should be allowed to flip the yes/no switch that easily regarding hidden costs for new content. You either plan to offer it or not, and if you change your mind, there should be a price you have to pay (i.e. offer refunds)
have you ever had problems with a physical good you bought before? You're allowed to return it if it does not work as intended, it doesn't matter if said thing actually works or satisfies your need (even if that's as, if not even more, important), if it has any kind of problem that impedes it's proper functioning you have the right to return it.
Having said that, I don't know why software should be any different, you don't need to be in black & white situations where your product either works or doesn't at all.
Sorry for the double post
While I also don't like microtransactions it doesn't make the game faulty in any way. This law clearly shouldn't cove this. The game did t get worse because they added something.
I'm a borderline anarchist, but I actually agree here.
When you buy or sell something, you are entering into a contract. If a company sells you something that is materially different than what they presented it to be, they are violating the terms of that contract. That is a use of force against someone, and is a legitimate delegation of natural rights to the State.
When you buy or sell something, you are entering into a contract. If a company sells you something that is materially different than what they presented it to be, they are violating the terms of that contract. That is a use of force against someone, and is a legitimate delegation of natural rights to the State.
Well, if they accompanied it with a patch that crippled the progression system that would - arguably - be a justifiable cause for complaint. No idea if they actually did so, though.
VibratingDonkey
Member
Technically it's not the description that was misleading, but a statement made by the Community Manager. Basically, what representatives say to or promise you on a forum or whatnot, does not matter in the eye of the law. The context of where the misleading statement was made matters as if the trader is not aware the producer has misled people to buy the game, the trader can't be held responsible for causing the purchase, so to speak. It's not fair to the trader to lose a sale over a fuck-up the producer is solely responsible for.
That's where it gets weird. The producer should be held responsible, but it's the trader I have a contract with, thus I'm held responsible?
If this doesn't go anywhere with GMG, I'll try Codemasters. I'm sure they have no legal obligations whatsoever, but maybe they'll be nice and do something anyway. Hopefully GMG will get to that point.
It's not faulty. It's not as advertised.
I think for that to stand up you'd have to demonstrate how the product with the option of buying microtransactions differs from the product that does not have that option.
VibratingDonkey
Member
I think that's doable, particularly on the online side, where they're effectively cheats in a competitive environment. With single-player it's more of a principle-based matter where examples may be less tangible as it's about opposing the proliferation of this revenue model rather than necessarily a problem with this specific implementation.
Regardless, I know that I would not have bought the game if I'd known they were going to introduce monetized progression. How to prove that? I guess I could point to a history of irritated forum posts on the matter, like this one.
When you buy something, you should judge the product by the hard facts presented to you by the contract partner. If that does not satisfy you, you can still ask questions, and make arrangements, with the seller.
Don't use any hype, commercials and whatever as your basis.
In my opinion, the law is fine here.
How is it "anti-protection"?
The producer may be held accountable for false advertising.
Aren't there some laws against that in the UK?
Not necessarily. I bought a game for the Wii about 6 months ago, which was released in 2007. Now, I wasn't bothered about playing it online and I was aware the online servers would be shut down in May, but that would not necessarily be the case for everybody else who could have bought it recently.
I just looked at the box of a German retail version of Mario Kart Wii.
I expected there some fine print about Wi-Fi connections availability.
To me surprise there was non.
It is even not mentioned, that you have to agree to the Nintendo's ToS* for online play.
So from my understanding, you could have a good case of being able to return a game,
especially since online play is a big bullet point on the games box.
*speaking of ToS: I guess there is something in the ToS that covers the shutdown of service
VibratingDonkey
Member
I understand this now. What representatives of the producer say is irrelevant. I thought it wouldn't be. And in some cases it isn't, when you can argue the trader reasonably should have been aware. What exactly this would take I do not know.
The producer may be held accountable for false advertising, but probably not in cases like mine where as far as I'm aware, I'm the only one who was influenced by it, and the product was like £25.
Anyway, GMG said they'll give me a refund after saying "no refunds" for a while.
Good will gesture > law.
dr_octagon
Banned
If you decide to cancel and return a purchased game (not downloaded or installed), you should get a refund in theory. But it's whether you agreed to waive your rights. This was the case before (digital goods were exempt from cancellation under the UK's Distance Selling Regulations) but I wasn't sure if the new legislation changed anything. Previously, as long as it was made clear by the seller (a disclaimer saying you cannot cancel once you click buy), you would be unable to return a game. I wanted to get clarification if anything had changed and had a run in with Sony which shed some light on the issue.
I contacted European Consumer Centre to get further information and it confirms what I thought. You can cancel within 14 days but the content cannot be downloaded, you must not begin the process. Even if you cancel the download immediately, you have begun the process and no longer have the right to cancel. The act of downloading it (even if it's only a few kilobytes) would count as access - regardless of whether or not you install or play it. Their disclaimer doesn't mean anything (even if they have it included in the terms) because you do not waive your right simply by purchasing the digital good.
You may have to give information to demonstrate nothing was installed. (screenshots or video showing you've signed out of the service / download has not commenced). The company can ask you to prove your claim and may have technical data to show it has been downloaded. I have found that some companies, like Apple, are fine when cancelling.
I wanted to return a couple of PSN games (within the 14 day period). I put in written request to cancel, the games were not downloaded and they can revoke individual licenses. I was refused but knew it would be an uphill struggle. They said a refund would only apply to defective games but that's not applicable. My query was about cancellation and my rights applied because it's returning a game in the exact same condition (like you can cancel with a physical good). I replied by requesting all my download data from Sony but they wouldn't provide anything. I showed them a screenshot showing my trophy list which didn't have any of the games.
It took multiple emails, phone calls (only one was successful in getting through after 30 mins of waiting) and explaining I would pursue the matter via court for any proper response. I'm currently waiting for an update from Head Office (my request was picked up on 1st July). Will update when I hear back.
Edit - PSN wallet has been refunded but no email / call to let me know
I contacted European Consumer Centre to get further information and it confirms what I thought. You can cancel within 14 days but the content cannot be downloaded, you must not begin the process. Even if you cancel the download immediately, you have begun the process and no longer have the right to cancel. The act of downloading it (even if it's only a few kilobytes) would count as access - regardless of whether or not you install or play it. Their disclaimer doesn't mean anything (even if they have it included in the terms) because you do not waive your right simply by purchasing the digital good.
You may have to give information to demonstrate nothing was installed. (screenshots or video showing you've signed out of the service / download has not commenced). The company can ask you to prove your claim and may have technical data to show it has been downloaded. I have found that some companies, like Apple, are fine when cancelling.
I wanted to return a couple of PSN games (within the 14 day period). I put in written request to cancel, the games were not downloaded and they can revoke individual licenses. I was refused but knew it would be an uphill struggle. They said a refund would only apply to defective games but that's not applicable. My query was about cancellation and my rights applied because it's returning a game in the exact same condition (like you can cancel with a physical good). I replied by requesting all my download data from Sony but they wouldn't provide anything. I showed them a screenshot showing my trophy list which didn't have any of the games.
It took multiple emails, phone calls (only one was successful in getting through after 30 mins of waiting) and explaining I would pursue the matter via court for any proper response. I'm currently waiting for an update from Head Office (my request was picked up on 1st July). Will update when I hear back.
Edit - PSN wallet has been refunded but no email / call to let me know
dr_octagon
Banned
There is scope for allowing for fixes to be implemented and the complex nature of software is taken into account. Minor bugs may be expected but something which breaks the game would warrant a refund (assuming a fix is not possible). The law recognises that a flawless game is not technically possible. It's not an automatic refund scenario, there are other options available and it always depends on the situation. It won't be the same with every game.
The comparison to toasters is not of complexity but the principle of not functioning and have a replacement / fix or refund. Like a physical good, it extends the rights to digital goods.
My point is, that should have always been clear.
A contract is between a customer and a store.
They have to agree on the terms.
This is a good think, by the way.
Imagine if the customer were forced to hunt down the manufacturer.
Imagine if the manufacturer is in another country, under different laws.
I guess being able to use what the producer said is only in the law for edge cases.
For example for broken promises from a big national ad campaign.
I that case it is not about you and you being influenced.
Bad/misleading behaviour should be punished. Any punishment here would hurt Codemasters, but not help you.
You are from the UK? As is Codemasters and their representative?
So which agency needs to be tipped off to follow that case?
Good to hear
I hope more poeple may try to cancel at GMG, so they may put some pressure on Codemasters.
What are we paying for?
and why do you bring up a price converted to US$?
Ballthyrm
Member
I bring up this price because that's what we pay for a AAA release in France and in other countries, i don't know how video games are taxed but some of this money may go to the protection of consumers.
The article is about how europe has now more protection than the US, yeah , but they pay a lot more for their games too , that the point i wanted to go across.
Winter John
Member
I remember standing in Game a few years back watching a sales assistant telling some kid they didn't do refunds, or offer credit for faulty items, (he'd bought an Xbox from them earlier that day and said it wouldn't switch on) and the best she could do was give him a trade-in deal. At that point I stepped in before the kid accepted the deal and got ripped off. I told her that if she didn't refund the kid I'd be on the phone to Trading Standards and the local newspaper within the hour. She tried to spin some bullshit about company rules, until I pointed out to her that Game cannot just invent their own consumer laws. Eventually she gave the boy his money back, but made a huge display about the inconvenience, until I told her to shut her face. Anyway, that's another reason why I despise that company and want to see them driven out of business.
Well done
(I am sure there is a GIF for that)
That's a story from the UK right?
So Trading Standards is the body in the UK to call? Are they an agency?
Who would be the equivalent in other countries?
Out of context it could have been possible, that you were just referring to the story of Codemasters changing their stance on ingame purchases.
One tax would be value added tax (VAT), which for games should be at 15% or more in all EU countries. In Germany it is 19% for example.
US$ prices you see usually do not include a VAT, it has to be paid on top.
And of course there is the always changing ratio between Euro, US dollar and the British pound Sterling.
And price can be justified by different markets having different average incomes, different minimum vages and a different cost of living.
And I almost gladly accept to pay more, if it gives me extra security of EU laws, and Germany's laws.
Do you?
This seems a bit odd to me.. the game is not faulty its just really out dated on modern machines and can typically be easily fixed by finding a patch.
I think its great steam and gog offer super old stuff and hope they continue. Maybe make it more clear to consumers who dont want to look for patches ( so much work right?)
As someone who does not need any of these "rights", I'd rather pay less and not subsidize people who do.
The price you pay for games has little to do with consumer rights, and mainly depends on supply and demand.
Ballthyrm
Member
Of course, better safe than sorry
dr_octagon
Banned
They've been present but it wasn't clear / effective for digital goods and subscriptions (whereas it was easier to get a refund for a physical game). Cancellation for digital goods wasn't present before and it will help consumers be more confident about their rights when a company refuses to help.
BumblebeeCody
Member
This is great, thanks.