4 ms·

I'm not arguing that they didn't violate something legally, just that it seems stupid. What exactly did they violate? It seems against common logic if they're

I'm not arguing that they didn't violate something legally, just that it seems stupid. What exactly did they violate? It seems against common logic if they're within the bounds their own website offers here.

shakna 10y ago
> It seems against common logic if they're within the bounds their own website offers here. They violated Consumer Law. They aren't bound by the website, but by that which they provide. They: * Use AUD prices. * Accept AU billing addresses. * Have hardware in Australia Thus, they sell and operate within Australia, and are bound by the rules that every company in Australia are bound by. Thinking they can get away with things that the likes of Microsoft and Apple can't, seems rather shortsighted.
- timv 10y ago
  > Use AUD prices. Technically, they don't use AUD prices. Everything is in USD, but the prices are regional, so they have specific prices for Australian customers, but charge them in USD. It's an open question as to whether that is done to avoid currency risk, or to mask the fact that they are, in fact, doing business in Australia.
ux-app 10y ago
> if they're within the bounds their own website offers here In Australia "within the bounds of your own website" doesn't hold water. Australian Consumer Law trumps a site's TOS.
- problems 10y ago
  Sorry, that's not what I meant, I simply meant that their terms seem extremely good to me, so what exactly is the conflict with australian consumer law? Does it expect refunds to still be offered after a quite fair trial period on products labelled as "early access"? That is what seems against common sense to me.
  - shakna 10y ago
    The somewhat arbitrary played <2 hours doesn't matter at all. If it's less than 7 days from purchase, and the product is not as advertised, then the consumer is still entitled to a refund. An example of where this might have come into play in a reasonable circumstance: No Man's Sky, where Steam had to make an exception to their usual refund policy. A product being labelled as Early Access doesn't mean crap. It's still being sold, and purchased. So the consumer still has their purchasing rights. And Consumer Law will always trump anything Steam forces you to sign.
    - problems 10y ago
      It still seems a bit ridiculous when it comes to games. Most games can be beaten in less than 7 days and excuses made to get a refund under such laws, especially with early access titles. What's a company to do in such circumstances? It's important to keep a good balance between consumer protection and productive economy. I think the law is in the wrong here, not Valve in this case. As someone else has pointed out though, this may have been prior to Steam's refund policy being added.
      - shakna 10y ago
        A change of mind isn't a refund. It's false or misleading advertising that is.
        problems 10y ago
        But Valve's current policy clearly seems sufficient to protect against this just fine - the Australian consumer protection law takes it ridiculously far, especially for a small development shop working on a product advertised as "early access".
aplummer 10y ago
You can say whatever you want when you sell stuff in Australia, another set of laws (what we are talking about here trumps it). The most obvious case is warranties, you can take an iPhone back after 2 years with a 1 year warranty, and they have to fix it free. You can take expensive TVs back like 3 or 4 years after the warranty ends and get a repair for free.

shakna 10y ago

> It seems against common logic if they're within the bounds their own website offers here. They violated Consumer Law. They aren't bound by the website, but by that which they provide. They: * Use AUD prices. * Accept AU billing addresses. * Have hardware in Australia Thus, they sell and operate within Australia, and are bound by the rules that every company in Australia are bound by. Thinking they can get away with things that the likes of Microsoft and Apple can't, seems rather shortsighted.

timv 10y ago
> Use AUD prices. Technically, they don't use AUD prices. Everything is in USD, but the prices are regional, so they have specific prices for Australian customers, but charge them in USD. It's an open question as to whether that is done to avoid currency risk, or to mask the fact that they are, in fact, doing business in Australia.

ux-app 10y ago

> if they're within the bounds their own website offers here In Australia "within the bounds of your own website" doesn't hold water. Australian Consumer Law trumps a site's TOS.

problems 10y ago
Sorry, that's not what I meant, I simply meant that their terms seem extremely good to me, so what exactly is the conflict with australian consumer law? Does it expect refunds to still be offered after a quite fair trial period on products labelled as "early access"? That is what seems against common sense to me.
- shakna 10y ago
  The somewhat arbitrary played <2 hours doesn't matter at all. If it's less than 7 days from purchase, and the product is not as advertised, then the consumer is still entitled to a refund. An example of where this might have come into play in a reasonable circumstance: No Man's Sky, where Steam had to make an exception to their usual refund policy. A product being labelled as Early Access doesn't mean crap. It's still being sold, and purchased. So the consumer still has their purchasing rights. And Consumer Law will always trump anything Steam forces you to sign.
  - problems 10y ago
    It still seems a bit ridiculous when it comes to games. Most games can be beaten in less than 7 days and excuses made to get a refund under such laws, especially with early access titles. What's a company to do in such circumstances? It's important to keep a good balance between consumer protection and productive economy. I think the law is in the wrong here, not Valve in this case. As someone else has pointed out though, this may have been prior to Steam's refund policy being added.
    - shakna 10y ago
      A change of mind isn't a refund. It's false or misleading advertising that is.
      - problems 10y ago
        But Valve's current policy clearly seems sufficient to protect against this just fine - the Australian consumer protection law takes it ridiculously far, especially for a small development shop working on a product advertised as "early access".

aplummer 10y ago

You can say whatever you want when you sell stuff in Australia, another set of laws (what we are talking about here trumps it). The most obvious case is warranties, you can take an iPhone back after 2 years with a 1 year warranty, and they have to fix it free. You can take expensive TVs back like 3 or 4 years after the warranty ends and get a repair for free.