We're talking about a very recent product being discounted 75% where other stores have very different prices. Ignorance of that fact isn't a defense. That is why it states a customer in good faith in the Belgian law.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Retailer revoking keys due to price mistake; is this allowed?
- Thread starter TheVoidDragon
- Start date
We're talking about a very recent product being discounted 75% where other stores have very different prices. Ignorance of that fact isn't a defense. That is why it states a customer in good faith in the Belgian law.
yeah, the quoted thing doesn't fly with me either.
The thread was literally titled "pricing error".
The obvious error went viral, that's why the site was rendered unresponsive at times.
You think that not at least 95% of the people who bought (or try to buy) Civ for an absurdly low price were very much aware that this was in all likelihood a pricing error?
The site was stormed by that very group of "people visiting internet forums". This price wasn't advertised anywhere.
TheVoidDragon
Member
It's that it wasn't just an order in progress that seems to confuse things to me, though. If it was still waiting to be provided to the customer then cancelling it would be be perfectly fine, even though nothing in their terms says anything about that. The transaction was finished and the customer had received the item, so what does the law say about taking back a customers order after it's completed and legally (as far as i know) not the retailers anymore? What people have said here seems to be about cancelling orders, but it doesn't even seem clear if that's even what this counts as because it was a completed order.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
Biff
Member
I am probably the most pro-capitalism person out there, and even I can submit that generating profits is a privilege, not a right.
If a retailer wants to set up shop in order to charge customers a higher price than the cost of the product, they enter into an agreement with capitalism: there may be profits, but there may be losses.
- It is 100% the fault of the retailer for not properly coding their BF sale.
- It is 100% the fault of the retailer for not having a human check their product pages on the biggest retail day of the year.
- It is 100% the fault of the retailer for not having a human keep an eye on unusual web traffic activity on the biggest retail day of the year.
- It is 100% the fault of the retailer for not coding in a "cool-off" period before delivery to catch potential price errors.
The sales were made. The transaction occurred, and money was exchanged for goods.
Halting delivery of keys and cancelling orders is one thing.
Cancelling unused keys is another.
But cancelling all keys, including the revocation of used keys, is extremely unprofessional.
If a retailer wants to set up shop in order to charge customers a higher price than the cost of the product, they enter into an agreement with capitalism: there may be profits, but there may be losses.
- It is 100% the fault of the retailer for not properly coding their BF sale.
- It is 100% the fault of the retailer for not having a human check their product pages on the biggest retail day of the year.
- It is 100% the fault of the retailer for not having a human keep an eye on unusual web traffic activity on the biggest retail day of the year.
- It is 100% the fault of the retailer for not coding in a "cool-off" period before delivery to catch potential price errors.
The sales were made. The transaction occurred, and money was exchanged for goods.
Halting delivery of keys and cancelling orders is one thing.
Cancelling unused keys is another.
But cancelling all keys, including the revocation of used keys, is extremely unprofessional.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
It sure stands out amongst gaming deals this year, I think. The reason everyone knew it was a price mistake right off the bat is because it was far and away the best deal on any game put up this year, after all.
TeddyShardik
Banned
I'd be very interested in this. Usually if there is a mistake in pricing the seller does not have to honour that offer.
That's all before the sale took place though.
A contract can be fought after its completion when there was a mistake in it and you can prove it but outright just making the sold good useless might not be without problems even if they refund everyone.
That's all before the sale took place though.
A contract can be fought after its completion when there was a mistake in it and you can prove it but outright just making the sold good useless might not be without problems even if they refund everyone.
nopenopenope
Member
.
Last edited:
Can a physical store change the price of something you bought and force you to bring it back to the store?
TheVoidDragon
Member
Even if Valve didn't revoke the keys, paying customers still had something they paid for taken away; in order to get the key for the game it was listed on your GamesRepublic account, and they've removed them from customers accounts there. So anyone who actually got an order through, had the item on their account page but didn't get a chance to use it yet has had it taken away, despite it already being paid for and received. That's what happened to me, it was in my account, they took it away *before* i could use it and *before* even telling customers that they were going to refund anyone, outside of a reddit post.
They replied to my complaint, they basically just said "We're sorry, hopefully it won't happen again". They ignored my request for them to state what in their terms & conditions lets them take away already paid for and received items after a completed transaction, though.
LowParry
Member
This is what I'm wondering as well. I've got my refund yet I can still play the game.
Cosmic Schwung
Member
If Gamersgate managed it when there was a misprice on Lara Croft:ToO keys then I'm pretty confident Games Rupublic can do it too.
It can take a while to happen. People were still able to play Arkham Knight long after they got their refunds but they did get removed eventually.
So in addition to your 20% off voucher and free game, you're even getting a free demo weekend.
papa bless GamesRepublic.
SkeptiMism
Member
I think it's good to remember that there are people behind corporations too.
So let's look at the case with the focus being on people. We have:
- The customer who bought the game, fully knowing it was a price mistake (the case of the OP and most likely the vast majority of people who bought it since the site was stormed). They lose the game and get refunded. So overall, the customer loses nothing since the situation returns to the same it was before the transaction.
- The small company that sold potentially hundreds or even thousands of copies of a new costly game, with an extremely low price due to a pricing mistake, potentially making losses totaling tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. The company might potentially go almost under with some employees losing their jobs over it, or in the worst case the company might go bankrupt, with all the employees losing their jobs. So the company decides to cancel the transaction.
I'm sorry, but at least in this case I'm siding with the company. I guess this makes me a corporationalist for some people, like to this guy:
I would normally agree though that it's the store's fault, their mistake so they pay. I'll even say that I don't really like that companies have the ability in the first place to completely revoke a purchase so easily. But with the losses being so big to them and them being a small company, and the customer suffering nothing in the end, I don't really have a problem with siding with them in this particular case.
And I know, I'm speculating about employees losing their jobs otherwise, but I think it's a reasonable assumption with the company being small, and with the site having been stormed over it.
I'll also note that it's easy for people to say that the company should've done a better job to not have the price mistake, but if it were your company, and you had trusted some external software company to not make such a mistake possible but it still happens and you make huge losses over it,I bet your tune would be pretty different.
I know, none of this still matters to some people, because as long as they're the consumer and it's a company that messes up, they're entitled to the thing they got, no matter how many people suffer as a result.
So let's look at the case with the focus being on people. We have:
- The customer who bought the game, fully knowing it was a price mistake (the case of the OP and most likely the vast majority of people who bought it since the site was stormed). They lose the game and get refunded. So overall, the customer loses nothing since the situation returns to the same it was before the transaction.
- The small company that sold potentially hundreds or even thousands of copies of a new costly game, with an extremely low price due to a pricing mistake, potentially making losses totaling tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. The company might potentially go almost under with some employees losing their jobs over it, or in the worst case the company might go bankrupt, with all the employees losing their jobs. So the company decides to cancel the transaction.
I'm sorry, but at least in this case I'm siding with the company. I guess this makes me a corporationalist for some people, like to this guy:
I would normally agree though that it's the store's fault, their mistake so they pay. I'll even say that I don't really like that companies have the ability in the first place to completely revoke a purchase so easily. But with the losses being so big to them and them being a small company, and the customer suffering nothing in the end, I don't really have a problem with siding with them in this particular case.
And I know, I'm speculating about employees losing their jobs otherwise, but I think it's a reasonable assumption with the company being small, and with the site having been stormed over it.
I'll also note that it's easy for people to say that the company should've done a better job to not have the price mistake, but if it were your company, and you had trusted some external software company to not make such a mistake possible but it still happens and you make huge losses over it,I bet your tune would be pretty different.
I know, none of this still matters to some people, because as long as they're the consumer and it's a company that messes up, they're entitled to the thing they got, no matter how many people suffer as a result.
TheVoidDragon
Member
Again though, this isn't as simple as that. It's not just cancelling a purchase, it's allowing a purchase, providing the item, and then taking it back after it belongs to the customer and is no longer theirs. The purchase was entirely completed, they then decided they'd changed their mind and wanted it back. If they had cancelled it before it was complete, that's fine, nothing wrong with that, but that is not what has happened here.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
So, fine. Their Civ price was put up in error. I've had plenty of price errors cancelled, even from Amazon who is known for honoring their errors. Cancelling price errors is something I can very easily understand. I think there were issues like this back in the early 2000s with various websites having these price errors, and companies ended up honoring them because they sent out automated responses and those were considered (at least in a few UK cases) to be "automatic acceptances of the offer," at least without proper terms and conditions.
The thing that makes this even worse is that they didn't just send out automatic receipts, they actually distributed the product. Is there any precedent for a retailer actually taking back a product that you've already received? Don't they deserve blame for having a system that didn't flag the massive monetary loss going on, or the absurdly high sales volume, and/or have some kind of delivery delay so that they could revoke price errors?
This wouldn't have generated the furor that it did if they hadn't actually sent out the game to the people.
The thing that makes this even worse is that they didn't just send out automatic receipts, they actually distributed the product. Is there any precedent for a retailer actually taking back a product that you've already received? Don't they deserve blame for having a system that didn't flag the massive monetary loss going on, or the absurdly high sales volume, and/or have some kind of delivery delay so that they could revoke price errors?
This wouldn't have generated the furor that it did if they hadn't actually sent out the game to the people.
People on here think that correcting a pricing error online is as easy as flipping a switch. They probably had to bring servers down just to stop people from purchasing the product. And then you got people on here saying that they "changed their minds." I don't think it was ever in their minds to sell it at that price. It was either a glitch or a fat finger somewhere. People in this world huff and puff about some silly crap. It's a brand new game. You can probably get it somewhere for around 35-50 bucks somewhere else. Or you can wait next year and pick it up for the price you wanted to buy it at during the price error.
I'd rather they make people with 1st world problems cry about their purchase than them probably having to shut down shop because of a simple mistake. I'm not saying don't go after price mistakes, but don't get upset when they revoke your purchase.
But then you have these same people crying, buying from grey-market sites that gladly sell keys bought with stolen credit cards without batting a damn eye. Where is the same anger directed to those piece of crap companies?
Some consumers are just as disgusting as some corporations.
I'd rather they make people with 1st world problems cry about their purchase than them probably having to shut down shop because of a simple mistake. I'm not saying don't go after price mistakes, but don't get upset when they revoke your purchase.
But then you have these same people crying, buying from grey-market sites that gladly sell keys bought with stolen credit cards without batting a damn eye. Where is the same anger directed to those piece of crap companies?
Some consumers are just as disgusting as some corporations.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
The short answer is that they cancel it because they physically can.
We know on a moral level, they should be able to.. it's a clear pricing error. From a consumer standpoint, you know it's a pricing error and are gambling on whether or not they'll catch it and IMO you should be should be looking at it from a neutral stance of "cool if I get it, no sweat if I don't", because you are no worse off if it gets cancelled.
As far as the legality on their part, I have no idea.
If it was a disc and it shipped to you, they'd be ass out and would have no way to deal with it outside of the impractical. With digital licenses on always online services like Steam, each key is tethered to the source; which is probably what helps them give you the right to get a refund if you think about it... also allows them to take it back, but it's not like you aren't getting your money back.
We know on a moral level, they should be able to.. it's a clear pricing error. From a consumer standpoint, you know it's a pricing error and are gambling on whether or not they'll catch it and IMO you should be should be looking at it from a neutral stance of "cool if I get it, no sweat if I don't", because you are no worse off if it gets cancelled.
As far as the legality on their part, I have no idea.
If it was a disc and it shipped to you, they'd be ass out and would have no way to deal with it outside of the impractical. With digital licenses on always online services like Steam, each key is tethered to the source; which is probably what helps them give you the right to get a refund if you think about it... also allows them to take it back, but it's not like you aren't getting your money back.
TheVoidDragon
Member
They've "changed their minds" because they're going back on a completed transaction. Under their terms the transaction was legit, so they've basically sold it to customers and then demanded it back because they didn't really want you having it for the price afterall. Again, there's a difference between cancelling a misprice before the transaction is done and taking it back after it's been completed and the item provided to the customer.
Your grasping at hairs here. You bought a game that I'm 99% sure you knew was due to a glitched price, then you want to frame yourself as the victim when they call you out on it.
I mean could you argue using a loophole in the law? I dunno, but morally you are in the wrong here.
I mean could you argue using a loophole in the law? I dunno, but morally you are in the wrong here.
TheVoidDragon
Member
So you have an issue with that, but not with a retailer taking an item back that should no longer be theirs as it was provided to the customer after a legit, legal transaction was completed, which also seems to go against their terms & conditions? If this had been a non-digital purchase, would you defend the retailer taking it back and refunding the item without the customers permission? Whether it's morally right or wrong to buy something that's mispriced seems pretty irrelevant to that happening.
Stop hiding behind legal stuff here. You knew there was a price mistake, you took advantage of the price mistake. Period. Don't act live the victim when you tried to get one over on them. I don't care about the legal stuff here. I'm all for them revoking the keys in this situation. They're entirely justified in doing so.
It's the "fuck you, I want mine" petulance that infests the internet.
No empathy for the fact that it was a mistake, or that a business may be hurt by it. Nope, me having a fucking video game to play matters more than your livelihood.
I think regardless of if this was a pricing mistake, this is a terrible precedent to set. This is a company that completed a transaction, took people's money, provided keys and then post transaction cancelled keys that were no longer theirs. These weren't stolen keys where they obviously have some claim on them. These were legitimately other people's keys at the time they were revoked. That's where people should be leery. It's another layer of consumer digital rights being peeled back whatever you stance on this.
TheVoidDragon
Member
So, one standard for non-digital purchases and something entirely different for digital purchases?
I don't have the game, so what, that's not the point at all here. As I've said before, this is more about the morality and legality of them taking something that goes against their terms and conditions that by that point is no longer theirs more than it is about whether i actually have the game or not.
Like i said, if this had been a physical item at a store, with a retailer selling you something and then after you'd got it they decided to take it back and refunded you without you asking them to, would you find that acceptable?
What about the morality of taking advantage of something you knew was a mistake, that would cause them to lose money?
mugurumakensei
Member
You got your money back and some. I don't know why you're so angry. You didn't get Civ VI for cheap, so what? Wait a year.
It'd be one thing if you were out money, but you're not. It isn't about morality. It's the fact that you feel entitled to a game because of a pricing error.
The thing is that the keys had transferred ownership. GamesRepublic no longer owned the keys. The customers owned the keys. GamesRepublic then had Steam revoke keys that they no longer owned or had any rights to. This wasn't a case of stolen or exploited keys. These keys were legally purchased, received and redeemed. The proper course of action would be for GamesRepublic to go through the legal system if they had a legal right to get their property back after completing a transaction involving a pricing error. Instead they abused their position of power to have the new owners' keys revoked after the fact. People talk about not really owning anything if you go digital, but if this is fine then you really don't own anything as the people that sold you your keys can revoke them at any time after purchase for any reason. This shouldn't be about the pricing error. This should be about companies abusing their position to obviate the need to go through the proper legal channels.
mugurumakensei
Member
If they were to go to small claims court, they'd have to file thousands of court cases. Then, the customers are out court costs but get their $16 bucks refunded which is less than the cost of attending any court I've been to.
Not too mention, GamesRepublic would have to eat the initial costs of the court proceedings regardless of ruling. official legal channels would be stupid as neither courts nor paws have really ramped up to deal with legal problems that are the results of computer errors and automated process. I guess all digital sites could adapt a manual review process that delays receipt of keys for a day or more. I don't think that's very consumer friendly.
So you feel corporations should not have to go through the proper legal channels if it would cost them a lot of money? Also you are assuming that GamesRepublic would win the court cases which is a big assumption.
But like I said this shouldn't be about the pricing error. This should be about a company abusing their position of power to revoke keys they no longer owned. Consumer protections exist to prevent companies from abusing their positions of power.
blazeuk
Member
The customer has every right to fight it in a court, the companies defense will be that it was an honest mistake and the counter argument would be that it was done during a sale and wasn't an obvious mistake. There's a good chance the customer would win that case but is it really worth the hassle especially with the chance of losing?
In the end I'm sure they care more about not losing so much money compared to losing customers who wouldn't have even heard of them never mind used them unless there was a price error.
Having worked on the price error side of ecommerce. I can vouch that it's not at all simple to quickly change prices to react before something like this blows up to an absurd level of orders. I can also state with a high level of confidence a large number of keys in this case were not sold to Joe gamer who just wants to get his nuclear war with Gandhi on. The vast bulk of the keys would have been snatched up by resellers who troll the internet for pricing mistakes to make a profit. A small retailer simply can't absorb that kind of loss and legal or not they have no choice but to revoke the keys. On the ecommerce site I worked for we had a disclaimer about not being responsible for price errors, we got plenty of threats but nobody ever actually sued.
The company used it's position of power to revoke keys they didn't own, and thus flipped the onus of legal action from themselves onto the consumers. People are so hung up on the pricing error when that isn't what this should be about. This should be about a company transferring the ownership of keys and then retroactively revoking them.
This is not how it works. The retailer contacts the publisher, which will then proceed to have the keys revoked.
AuthenticM
Member
It depends on where you live. Check your local laws.
That shit is probably illegal in Québec.
That shit is probably illegal in Québec.
TheVoidDragon
Member
The order has been completed and the key provided to the customer, which is then theirs and no longer the retailers. It being a price error doesn't change that. This isn't the same as cancelling an order, it's fulfilling an order then taking it back. It being a price error doesn't change that.
The price error absolutely changes that. It is the whole argument. If it wasn't a price error, the key wouldn't have been revoked.
TheVoidDragon
Member
The key has legally exchanged hands and the purchase completed, it is no longer the retailers to do what they want with, price error or not.
Except they've sold it to you AND given you the key to download it. So, no I wouldn't say it's allowed, it's gone past the point when the exchange has been completed. They are in the wrong to do this.
This would be like buying a game from a store, going home installing it, then some guy from the store comes round and takes the disc and deletes it from your console, then gives you your money back.
TylerDurden4321
Member
*raises hand*
Uhmm, question:
Had the key been used already, they couldn't have revoked and refunded, right? Steam wouldn't have bothered.
Next time, just use the key directly after the purchase. And if you never intended to use it yourself, e.g. just bought it to resell it for a profit, then what you tried is fucked up already, making a fuzz about it is even more so.
Uhmm, question:
Had the key been used already, they couldn't have revoked and refunded, right? Steam wouldn't have bothered.
Next time, just use the key directly after the purchase. And if you never intended to use it yourself, e.g. just bought it to resell it for a profit, then what you tried is fucked up already, making a fuzz about it is even more so.
TheVoidDragon
Member
I didn't get a chance to use the key, so you're suggesting i wanted it to sell on? Seriously?
Upon buying something from them you are provided with a link to the game key; the "All purchased Applications shall be delivered by providing the End User with link which enables such Applications download." part of the contract. That was done by adding it to your account page on the site. Due to it being 3am and the site being extremely slow, i was unable to get it from my account there, but the transaction had been completed and it was there. That is what i meant by revoking as they removed that key from my account, but for others that were able to be added to Steam, they have mentioned revoking the actual steam key and are discussing it with the publisher.
Similar threads
- Locked