-
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.
British Law; Right to 30-day refund becomes law today 1st Oct (includes games)
- Thread starter Tak3n
- Start date
SpiceMelange
Member
I wish such a law existed in Canada when I bought Halo MCC
matrixman92
Member
well, the online was announced to not be included before the game came out. So, I definitely wouldnt say that. But I couldnt access FOB's until like a week after the game came out on xbox one. While returning a game for that reason is dumb imo, I could see people trying that
NullPointer
Member
True, and right now its the industry doing the abusing.
Its only a matter of time. It might not be games that force the issue, but something will, and games will be swept up into new regulations.
King Beyond the wall
Member
I wrote my masters of Law dissertation on this subject so this area interests me quite a bit.
Its a very interesting area as digital goods have never been considered 'goods' under the regular legal definition so they have been outside the statutory remedies. This has made it very difficult to claim for defective digital goods in the past but the act has finally rectified this situation.
I won't go into too much boring detail but what this means for us as gaming consumers is that certain standards must be met by digital goods from now on, or the traders will be liable under new statutory remedies. Digital games must be of satisfactory quality, with the definition of satisfactory that being which a reasonable man would determine as satisfactory. However, if traders specify that there is a specific deficiency this will be taken into account and they may not be in breach. This covers things like early access games, but the key to the exception is that the deficiency must be made specific. It is not enough to simply say 'early access, may be problems'.
Another interesting point is that digital games will have to meet the satisfactory quality standard at purchase and also following updates to the game. So if a game launches fine but is then made unsatisfactory due to a later patch it will fall below the standard and the trader will be made liable.
Talking about patches, there is no implied right for traders to modify content or release patches, this must be included in the contract of sale as a clause (remember this one indiegaf)
When it comes to remedies they are not as strong as they are for physical goods. There is no short term right to reject, which in physical goods means that you can get a full refund within 30 if the content does not meet the satisfactory quality. The idea behind this is that it is not possible to 'return' digital goods. As you would imagine this is quite confusing for consumers so many traders have introduced their own short term right to reject, most notably steam.
The statutory remedies available for digital goods that are not of satisfactory quality are :
1. Repair/replacement
2. Reduction in price if the first remedy is 'impossible' or not done 'within a reasonable time' or would cause 'significant inconvenience to the consumer'
As you can see these are very ambiguous and it can be very difficult to see when these are met. The lack of a set number of repairs is also a bit confusing, in goods law the trader is limited to only one repair/replacement before a rejection of the goods can occur. In digital it is theoretically unlimited. Can you imagine if developers/publishers were limited to one patch to fix a broken game and lift it to satisfactory quality? Additionally the reduction in price is vague and essentially allows the trader to determine a sum to reduce the refund by for the consumer's use of the game.
These are statutory minimums and many big traders will undoubtedly offer better and simpler terms (like valve and apple already have) but it will be interesting to see how Microsoft and Sony will react to these changes.
If you have made it this far thanks for reading and I hope I didn't bore you guys too much.
Its a very interesting area as digital goods have never been considered 'goods' under the regular legal definition so they have been outside the statutory remedies. This has made it very difficult to claim for defective digital goods in the past but the act has finally rectified this situation.
I won't go into too much boring detail but what this means for us as gaming consumers is that certain standards must be met by digital goods from now on, or the traders will be liable under new statutory remedies. Digital games must be of satisfactory quality, with the definition of satisfactory that being which a reasonable man would determine as satisfactory. However, if traders specify that there is a specific deficiency this will be taken into account and they may not be in breach. This covers things like early access games, but the key to the exception is that the deficiency must be made specific. It is not enough to simply say 'early access, may be problems'.
Another interesting point is that digital games will have to meet the satisfactory quality standard at purchase and also following updates to the game. So if a game launches fine but is then made unsatisfactory due to a later patch it will fall below the standard and the trader will be made liable.
Talking about patches, there is no implied right for traders to modify content or release patches, this must be included in the contract of sale as a clause (remember this one indiegaf)
When it comes to remedies they are not as strong as they are for physical goods. There is no short term right to reject, which in physical goods means that you can get a full refund within 30 if the content does not meet the satisfactory quality. The idea behind this is that it is not possible to 'return' digital goods. As you would imagine this is quite confusing for consumers so many traders have introduced their own short term right to reject, most notably steam.
The statutory remedies available for digital goods that are not of satisfactory quality are :
1. Repair/replacement
2. Reduction in price if the first remedy is 'impossible' or not done 'within a reasonable time' or would cause 'significant inconvenience to the consumer'
As you can see these are very ambiguous and it can be very difficult to see when these are met. The lack of a set number of repairs is also a bit confusing, in goods law the trader is limited to only one repair/replacement before a rejection of the goods can occur. In digital it is theoretically unlimited. Can you imagine if developers/publishers were limited to one patch to fix a broken game and lift it to satisfactory quality? Additionally the reduction in price is vague and essentially allows the trader to determine a sum to reduce the refund by for the consumer's use of the game.
These are statutory minimums and many big traders will undoubtedly offer better and simpler terms (like valve and apple already have) but it will be interesting to see how Microsoft and Sony will react to these changes.
If you have made it this far thanks for reading and I hope I didn't bore you guys too much.
Gentleman Jack
Member
I think this one will prove contentious between software makers and consumers. Data corruption bugs are bad but fairly uncommon and it puts publishers on a financial hook to compensate the affected client. Sounds like something bigger devs will just buy insurance for and something smaller devs have to hope never, ever happens to them.
Dyson Industries
Banned
Ubisoft is buggered. I don't thank this government for much, but I'm cheering this turn of events.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Who determins what is considered faulty, or not up to snuff? The retailer? A board posting approved "consumer alerts"? What if you say it is faulty, but a retailer said, "this is the first we heard of this"?
Seems it can be either abused, or just not enforced until a class action is brought up.
Seems it can be either abused, or just not enforced until a class action is brought up.
PetulantChild
Banned
So it's literally just Gamestops old return policy where all you have to do is make up some bullshit about glitches or corrupted saves and you get your money back? Surely this won't be abused at all.
I imagine you have to prove the problem exists. Which won't be hard to do with neogaf/YouTube existing. If you can't prove the product is defective, you won't get your money back.
NullPointer
Member
Not at all. Great post. Thanks.
I consider anything running under 120fps to be faulty as it's jarring and ruins the experience. However, only after I thoroughly evaluate it's faults for a period of 29 days.
Sadly I live n the U.S.
Impotaku
Member
Wonder how many games will magically not get released in the EU now this law is in effect. Devs won't want to take that risk of all there sales been refunded when they release unfinished games & keep quiet about it then act all innocent when the shit hits the fan & then promise they will work on a patch.
This bit sounds worrisome. It's not a good way to protect data, and it seems like a big liability for small developers.
All storage will eventually die. Often suddenly and without warning. If you're not willing to spend time and money on backing up your data, then you're treating your data as if its worthless.
UnderWaterTree
Member
you could probably just talk to your mp or start a petition
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Will be funny if games like Tony Hawk still launch as is in the US but get massive delays in the UK or get their UK release cancelled altogether.
Well the general principle around these types of protections has been that the product should be fit for the purpose that it was purchased. So any feature of a product that outright does not work should be adequate grounds. For something like frame rate it could be more tricky but would probably come down to whether there was a reasonable expectation (implied or stated) that the frame rate would be a certain way and whether it was reasonable to suggest that the product was not fit for purpose due to the frame rate. It's all well and good to say that a particular frame rate makes something unplayable for you but whether that would be found a reasonable position by the courts is another matter.
inpHilltr8r
Member
Fascinating stuff. Always interesting to hear the legal perspective.
Who gets to decide what a reasonable man thinks though?
The store either agrees or not. If not then you would have to take it to the ombudsman. The question being - is it worth the retailer to go to arbitration or would they just refund. Better than before when small claims court was your only recourse.
BumblebeeCody
Member
Fuck 'em. GAME have always taken the piss when it comes to returns. Digital games are covered?
AuthenticM
Member
Great.
King Beyond the wall
Member
The purpose of statutory remedies is that the traders/consumers will self regulate and come to the correct conclusion themselves. This decision is therefore decided between the consumer and the trader based on the circumstances. If the trader unreasonably disagrees then the consumer can take the issue to the ombudsman for that industry (these are the people who ensure that the industry is regulated correctly and running accordingly) who can then issue fines against the trader.
milanbaros
Member?
Ombudsmen are generally very hesitant to side with the company in any industry in the UK. The retailers will likely just take the customers word for it.
If it becomes a problem for devs and pubs games will simply be launched weeks later over here.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Protecting consumer rights is "babying" people?!
I don't think you'll be able to return a game because you didn't like the ending. This is to give consumers recourse against faulty goods which do not work as advertised.
In the UK companies almost always cave when they learn you are heading to the ombudsman...
I once got refused a chargeback request from Halifax bank over some unauthorised work carried out by a garage (I had to pay as we have the most horrendous law in the UK where garages can keep you car legally until you pay)
after they refused I said I would be taking it forward to the ombudsman... 10 mins later my phone rang, and got offered a instant full refund from the bank!
They work and work well
I once got refused a chargeback request from Halifax bank over some unauthorised work carried out by a garage (I had to pay as we have the most horrendous law in the UK where garages can keep you car legally until you pay)
after they refused I said I would be taking it forward to the ombudsman... 10 mins later my phone rang, and got offered a instant full refund from the bank!
They work and work well
alexandros
Banned
Bravo, UK!
Stallion Dan
Member
What defines broken? Ass Creed Unity was a mess, but it still played.
Also, does this cover false advertising? Because the number of times we've had to wait until release to discover some feature they showed or talked about a a year or two ago was cut.
Lastly, what is to stop MS/Sony/Nintendo being assholes and banning your account for forcing a refund through ombudsman?
Also, does this cover false advertising? Because the number of times we've had to wait until release to discover some feature they showed or talked about a a year or two ago was cut.
Lastly, what is to stop MS/Sony/Nintendo being assholes and banning your account for forcing a refund through ombudsman?
Sounds like something that will be abused by gamers
It will be exploited and abused. Games that are not broken will be blown out of proportion by peopl who feel the game is broken to them.
Drive club & Mcc = broken
Batman on PC - broken
Not like destiny or halo 5 because you bought into the hype - no refund, gtfo with that
I can see people trying to get a refund on fallout4 due to the usual Bethesda bugs and writing a 8 paragraph rant about gamers rights
It will be exploited and abused. Games that are not broken will be blown out of proportion by peopl who feel the game is broken to them.
Drive club & Mcc = broken
Batman on PC - broken
Not like destiny or halo 5 because you bought into the hype - no refund, gtfo with that
I can see people trying to get a refund on fallout4 due to the usual Bethesda bugs and writing a 8 paragraph rant about gamers rights
nothing, nothing at all... you can have all the laws in place but if a company wants to be a dick, they can...
What it does is give the consumer a weapon.
Negotiation, then the independent arbitrator, then ultimately a small claims court for individual claims or a higher court for a class action.
In the UK companies almost always cave when they learn you are heading to the ombudsman...
I once got refused a chargeback request from Halifax bank over some unauthorised work carried out by a garage (I had to pay as we have the most horrendous law in the UK where garages can keep you car legally until you pay)
after they refused I said I would be taking it forward to the ombudsman... 10 mins later my phone rang, and got offered a instant full refund from the bank!
They work and work well
It depends on the sector, but for banks at least they have to pay for the ombudsman costs regardless of if they win, so if they don't think they're setting a horrible precident it's almost always cheaper for them to give you the money back regardless of their opinion on the merits of your case.
Each store generally has its own retail policy
Not to mention we are more about replacing products for either the same value or more rather than returning it for money
You have been able to reject physical goods and demand a refund for several years in the UK. Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979: "To get a refund on a faulty item, you need to reject it and return it within a reasonable time after purchase - usually three to four weeks." - this is a direct quote from the "Which" consumer rights website.
I don't think quoting heresay evidence from GAF or Youtube in court will do much to sway a judge, if it went that far!
In the UK companies almost always cave when they learn you are heading to the ombudsman...
I once got refused a chargeback request from Halifax bank over some unauthorised work carried out by a garage (I had to pay as we have the most horrendous law in the UK where garages can keep you car legally until you pay)
after they refused I said I would be taking it forward to the ombudsman... 10 mins later my phone rang, and got offered a instant full refund from the bank!
They work and work well
Yeah in practical terms dealing with the Ombudsman is a long, drawn out process and best avoided. I've been through it a couple of times and it's not really cool. Best bet is to threaten them with it and hope for the best.