3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIt 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 agoA change of mind isn't a refund. It's false or misleading advertising that is.
- problems 10y agoBut 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".