3 ms·

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?

by abiox 9y ago

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.
- WillReplyfFood 9y ago
  Would bad PC-Ports with a ruined UI qualify to that?
  - shakna 9y ago
    That depends on the advertising for the PC platform. If "it is significantly different from the sample or description" or "it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it" or "it doesn’t do what the business said it would, or what you asked for and can’t easily be fixed." Then yes, it would qualify. So a bad port that still used the same graphics from the original platform to advertise could be an issue. Or if it contained show-stopping bugs, it could be a problem. Or if the business drops features after you purchase.

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?

by 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.
WillReplyfFood 9y ago
Would bad PC-Ports with a ruined UI qualify to that?
- shakna 9y ago
  That depends on the advertising for the PC platform. If "it is significantly different from the sample or description" or "it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it" or "it doesn’t do what the business said it would, or what you asked for and can’t easily be fixed." Then yes, it would qualify. So a bad port that still used the same graphics from the original platform to advertise could be an issue. Or if it contained show-stopping bugs, it could be a problem. Or if the business drops features after you purchase.