8 ms·

And what if you buy a Steam game, play it to completion, and decide you didn't like it very much? What if you only played half way through? At what point does

• lovich 9y ago
  Id say the companys can refund the whole thing or start applying value to the parts of their game which they can refund if they were used. Physical goods dont just stop having user protections if 90% of the item works but the last piece doesnt
• jph00 9y ago
  The Australian law in question requires refunds be made available if you can show that the product was not "fit for the purpose for which they were sold". It is an entirely reasonable expectation for a purchaser to make of a product, and entirely reasonable that they should receive a refund where that expectation is not met.
  • abiox 9y ago
    i wonder what 'the purpose' of video games are, in the judiciary's eyes. if i didn't like the ending of a game, is it thereby not fit for purpose?
    • chii 9y ago
      whitebox goods have set plenty of precedents for such reasoning - if it works as advertised, then you can't return it simply because you didn't like what it did (or its looks etc, or that it didn't fit your cabinet/spacing etc). It has to be defective, or didn't perform the full range of functions that is advertised. For a video game, i'd assume that as long as the game ran (no crashing etc), and the game has all the elements that is advertised, you can't return it for a refund. A good example was no man's sky. I would say it's refund-worthy, since they advertised that it is possible to multiplayer, and meet other people.
      • richforrester 9y ago
        See my comment above; > if the request is made within fourteen days of purchase, and the title has been played for less than two hours Purpose of games, is entertainment. 2 hours should be enough for you to decide if the game was worth it or not. Let's say the average game gives you 40 hours of entertainment. (Bit arbitrary, granted.) 2 hours would be 5% of it's total lifespan. Sounds reasonable?
        • david-s 9y ago
          40 hours is not a good guess at a game's play time. Many indie games are around 4h long. I've played a story game that was only 2 hours long
        • jackvalentine 9y ago
          > Sounds reasonable? Not under the Australian consumer law. We’re (rightly) quite proud of the level of protection it affords consumers.
        • shakna 9y ago
          Let's also say there's a show-stopping bug that kills your save at hour 37. You might have enjoyed the game, but due to its broken nature, you are still entitled to a refund under Australian Consumer Rights.
          • shakna 9y ago
            Just to back up my statement above with actual ACCC advice: "it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it" is considered a "major" problem with the product.
        • EliRivers 9y ago
          2 hours should be enough for you to decide if the game was worth it or not. This seems to be straying off-topic. The question isn't whether it was worth the price paid. The question is does it violate consumer protection laws vis-a-vis does it do what they said it would. Sounds reasonable? It does not. Applying a uniform hard limit to the full range of all possible games seems unreasonable. Practical, but not reasonable.
  • richforrester 9y ago
    Refunds apply: > if the request is made within fourteen days of purchase, and the title has been played for less than two hours Based on the premise that games are made for entertainment, 2 hours seems (to me) like a solid enough amount of time to figure out if something's worth it or not.
    • jackvalentine 9y ago
      What if the game has a showstopper bug in hour #3 of gameplay? It’s not fit for purpose.
      • lovich 9y ago
        To add to your point, there are many types of games that dont even let you get to all the features until pretty far in. Brutal legend basically changed genres mid game, thats not a 2 hour find
        • fenomas 9y ago
          This seems quite far removed from the issue being discussed. Having features late in the game that you don't enjoy hardly means the game isn't fit for purpose. That's like saying a novel isn't fit for purpose unless you enjoy the ending.
          • jackvalentine 9y ago
            I think the point the above poster is making is that features may very well be broken deep in to a game and you just don't know until you get there.
          • shakna 9y ago
            One of the listed items under the ACCC's guide for "major" problems is: "it is significantly different from the sample or description". So, it could be argued that such a sudden change, if not clearly advertised, could constitute an issue for the product under their guarantees.
  • bdz 9y ago
    "fit for the purpose for which they were sold" Does that mean in Australia you can return your iPhone when it slows down?
    • imtringued 9y ago
      At the time of sale the phone wasn't defective.
      • bdz 9y ago
        So what if a game breaking bug introduced with a later content patch? At the time of the sale the game wasn't defective
      • shakna 9y ago
        That's mostly irrelevant under Consumer Rights. However, the phone slowing down probably doesn't constitute a major problem, but rather a minor one. If only a minor problem exists, Apple has the choice of giving you a free repair, replacement or refund, but which is up to them. So I expect in this particular case, they'll just give you a new battery and the problem will be solved.
• Zarath 9y ago
  Doesn't Steam track your game completion/hours played?
  • SXX 9y ago
    It's not enforced for most titles, you basically can go offline and play whatever you want unless you need to use multiplayer.
    • imtringued 9y ago
      I'm pretty sure steam tracks hours played in offline mode.
      • SXX 9y ago
        I suppose it does, but what I mean it's will be a loophole with refunds.
  • simion314 9y ago
    I had an issue where the game crashed but Stream continued to think the game is running, maybe they fixed this bug I do not know for sure.
    • zimpenfish 9y ago
      I've had that fairly recently (last 6 months) but it's only ever happened once - I'm guessing it's fairly low down the bug tracker priority list.
    • fenomas 9y ago
      Worth noting that the "2 hours" thing is just the cutoff for automatic refunds, it doesn't mean Steam never grants refunds past that cutoff. Did you try requesting a refund with a note explaining about the time issue?
      • simion314 9y ago
• craftyguy 9y ago
  Steam knows how long you play a game. Their policy could easily be "X days OR less than Y hours in game"
  • loeg 9y ago
    It already is (well, "AND"): > if the request is made within fourteen days of purchase, and the title has been played for less than two hours
    • craftyguy 9y ago
      Needs to be an OR, IMHO. Sometimes we pick up games, play 30-ish minutes, come back 2-3weeks later when there is more time, and bam. Game-breaking issues. (Especially with corrupt saved games. Seriously, how is it difficult to check integrity of a file after you write it out to disk)
• forgottenpass 9y ago
  I tend to agree with you, but it just seems like Steam would need a way to prevent people from abusing the system. I don't just get to ignore laws when they conflict with my goals. I mean, that's kinda the point of laws, right? I'm sure Steam can avail themselves of whatever legal mechanisms ozzies have for fraud in general or w/r/t returns in specific. If Steam is, in fact, obligated to honor a return with no legal recourse, even in cases that they still classify "abuse," then that is exactly the point of the statutory consumer protection. Just because they call it abuse doesn't mean the Australian people agree. They might be able to convince the government that what Valve perceives as a weakness in the boundaries of consumer protection is, in fact, against the public interest. They're also free to leave the market.