8 ms·

IANAL, but I believe that in Australia, you would be entitled to a refund. There is no fixed time limit on refunds, and it would be reasonable to suggest that a

IANAL, but I believe that in Australia, you would be entitled to a refund. There is no fixed time limit on refunds, and it would be reasonable to suggest that a game like this should just keep working. You'd probably have to argue your case still, as the company isn't likely to just refund without a fight. (As an aside, if you get a dishwasher and use it for 10 years, the "general wear and tear" would deny your refund, as it would be reasonable to suggest that ongoing usage would wear down the machine, especially, for instance, if you didn't do the regular maintenance suggested. )

watsonian__ 7y ago
It would be a refund in Australia as it is a faulty product. They may try stiff you on returning a physical disk (how do you prove it was faulty on sale?) but a good store will offer store credit at the very least because video games do not make money. The consoles do. The only times a refund can be denied in Australia when a problem occurs is if it was caused by you or if you changed your mind on a purchase. Otherwise the purchaser can dictate how they are rectified (swap, credit or refund). Edit: This is assuming you purchase it now. If you purchased it 9 years ago - it would be tough luck. The pivot is the condition at point of sale.
- Bnshsysjab 7y ago
  What? Australian consumer law has a limitation on 2 years or reasonable lifetime. Games don’t last forever and get obsoleted by newer operating systems. Sure I can run wine/VMware but I can also keep my 100 year old washing machine running with regular repairs which isn’t fixing the issue of deprecation or end of life.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Sure but as long as it runs on the latest version of Windows then does it matter? And based on other posters comments they updated it in 2017 to support windows 10.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    > Games don’t last forever and get obsoleted by newer operating systems. That doesn't excuse it now failing to run on Windows 7.
    - Bnshsysjab 7y ago
      If the bug was time based but not related to anti piracy would this even make the news? What about disc rot? Or n64 not working because nobody uses RCA anymore?
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        If it was just a time-based bug you could alter the clock or use software to fake it. Look, already exists: https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/run_as_date.html https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/run_as_date.html Disc rot won't affect anyone that made a backup, and anyone that didn't could find an iso I'm sure. An N64 still works the way it always did, just like if you installed this game on windows 7.
      - codebje 7y ago
        There's a pretty vast difference between an N64 being less widely useful because it's hard to source an RCA display (hint: you can buy an RCA to HDMI adaptor cheaply) and N64s including a remote "kill switch" that one day gets flipped, destroying all N64s immediately. Disney has sabotaged people's property by using (allowing a third party to use) a kill switch, and that shouldn't be acceptable. If a washing machine called home and checked that it's okay to run each time it was connected to power anew, and one day all of a particular model of washing machine was remotely told to stop working, I'm sure that would make the news.
      - boomlinde 7y ago
        The N64 isn't somehow broken because "nobody uses RCA anymore". That's like saying your outfit is broken because nobody wears bell-bottom jeans anymore. If you want to play N64, RCA monitors are still readily available, as are converters. Nothing stops you from using them other than plain disinterest. As for disc rot, I truly believe that if you sell discs with copy protection so that the consumers can't reasonably back them up, they should be eligible for replacements when the discs eventually break after normal use. This, on the other hand, is first of all not a bug; it's the copy protection working as designed. Whoever decided to use a subscription based copy protection system must have known that they'd either have to pay for it for a very long time or eventually fuck legitimate buyers over. It's deliberate and calculated. That it's related to anti-piracy doesn't factor into it. It's not pirates who are suffering from this, which is what critics have been saying about SecuROM for the last decade. Now, can you argue for the idea that using SecuROM is comparable to adopting an industry standard for video transmission that has proven to be so popular that it's still widely in use now, some 50 years after its invention, without the foresight to instead adopt standards that didn't yet exist?
  - shakna 7y ago
    > Australian consumer law has a limitation on 2 years or reasonable lifetime. It's a bit more nuanced than that. The limitation comes from when the consumer could reasonably have become aware of the fault, not from when the purchase was made. So in the case of SecuROM, that clock has only just started ticking.
- kuzimoto 7y ago
  I always thought it was the other way around - that games make the money. Aren't consoles even usually sold at a loss?
  - hnick 7y ago
    Typically yes. I think Nintendo sometimes turns a profit on consoles due to optimising on other factors than cutting edge power. Consoles can also become profitable over their lifetime as technology matures.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > video games do not make money. The consoles do. Where did this idea come from?
  - Double_a_92 7y ago
    Standard Oil probably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_model
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      Except that consoles do work on this model, and they are the razor, not the blades. When did you ever hear of someone getting a new console for the game they already have?
      - Double_a_92 7y ago
        Oh, I misread where the "not" was.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  >because video games do not make money Fortnite made $300 million per month.
nebulous1 7y ago
I don't know about Australia specifically but usually when consumer legislation doesn't mention time frame there's still a limitation on how long after the contract of sale that you can bring a case against the seller, and this serves as the practical time frame as there's no way to enforce a refund without going to court.
- inopinatus 7y ago
  IANAL but I do run a business that's subject to Australian consumer law. The limitations are not based on the date of the contract of sale, but the date on which the consumer became aware (or reasonably could have been aware) the product was defective, and/or an action was taken by some party to render the product defective. The consumer legislation does specify a six-year time limit from then on, but that clock only just started ticking. However, a refund is not obligatory. Repair i.e. a patch is an acceptable remedy under ACL.
  - wyongriver 7y ago
    You may be right but my reading of this would breach the ACL for “Undisturbed Possession of Goods”. That is - unless you told the customer the game had a limited life you can’t stop them using it. Doing so triggers a “remedy” - which - for a “major fault” is a refund. https://consumerlaw.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553FT_ACL-guides_Guarantees_web.pdf https://consumerlaw.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553... (Page 17) This can’t be hidden in a EULA. It has to be prominent or the term will be ruled invalid under the “Unfair Contract Term” provisions of the ACL. For those not familiar, ACL trumps all consumer contracts with standard terms. There are penalties for misrepresenting ACL (eg “No refunds” signs are banned, so are limits to consequential damages. Warranties are for a “reasonable” time, etc. )
    - inopinatus 7y ago
      Whatever you or I might think of DRM, it's not a "major failure" to offer products with it. Other provisions apply, but not that one.

watsonian__ 7y ago

It would be a refund in Australia as it is a faulty product. They may try stiff you on returning a physical disk (how do you prove it was faulty on sale?) but a good store will offer store credit at the very least because video games do not make money. The consoles do. The only times a refund can be denied in Australia when a problem occurs is if it was caused by you or if you changed your mind on a purchase. Otherwise the purchaser can dictate how they are rectified (swap, credit or refund). Edit: This is assuming you purchase it now. If you purchased it 9 years ago - it would be tough luck. The pivot is the condition at point of sale.

Bnshsysjab 7y ago
What? Australian consumer law has a limitation on 2 years or reasonable lifetime. Games don’t last forever and get obsoleted by newer operating systems. Sure I can run wine/VMware but I can also keep my 100 year old washing machine running with regular repairs which isn’t fixing the issue of deprecation or end of life.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Sure but as long as it runs on the latest version of Windows then does it matter? And based on other posters comments they updated it in 2017 to support windows 10.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > Games don’t last forever and get obsoleted by newer operating systems. That doesn't excuse it now failing to run on Windows 7.
  - Bnshsysjab 7y ago
    If the bug was time based but not related to anti piracy would this even make the news? What about disc rot? Or n64 not working because nobody uses RCA anymore?
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      If it was just a time-based bug you could alter the clock or use software to fake it. Look, already exists: https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/run_as_date.html https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/run_as_date.html Disc rot won't affect anyone that made a backup, and anyone that didn't could find an iso I'm sure. An N64 still works the way it always did, just like if you installed this game on windows 7.
    - codebje 7y ago
      There's a pretty vast difference between an N64 being less widely useful because it's hard to source an RCA display (hint: you can buy an RCA to HDMI adaptor cheaply) and N64s including a remote "kill switch" that one day gets flipped, destroying all N64s immediately. Disney has sabotaged people's property by using (allowing a third party to use) a kill switch, and that shouldn't be acceptable. If a washing machine called home and checked that it's okay to run each time it was connected to power anew, and one day all of a particular model of washing machine was remotely told to stop working, I'm sure that would make the news.
    - boomlinde 7y ago
      The N64 isn't somehow broken because "nobody uses RCA anymore". That's like saying your outfit is broken because nobody wears bell-bottom jeans anymore. If you want to play N64, RCA monitors are still readily available, as are converters. Nothing stops you from using them other than plain disinterest. As for disc rot, I truly believe that if you sell discs with copy protection so that the consumers can't reasonably back them up, they should be eligible for replacements when the discs eventually break after normal use. This, on the other hand, is first of all not a bug; it's the copy protection working as designed. Whoever decided to use a subscription based copy protection system must have known that they'd either have to pay for it for a very long time or eventually fuck legitimate buyers over. It's deliberate and calculated. That it's related to anti-piracy doesn't factor into it. It's not pirates who are suffering from this, which is what critics have been saying about SecuROM for the last decade. Now, can you argue for the idea that using SecuROM is comparable to adopting an industry standard for video transmission that has proven to be so popular that it's still widely in use now, some 50 years after its invention, without the foresight to instead adopt standards that didn't yet exist?
- shakna 7y ago
  > Australian consumer law has a limitation on 2 years or reasonable lifetime. It's a bit more nuanced than that. The limitation comes from when the consumer could reasonably have become aware of the fault, not from when the purchase was made. So in the case of SecuROM, that clock has only just started ticking.
kuzimoto 7y ago
I always thought it was the other way around - that games make the money. Aren't consoles even usually sold at a loss?
- hnick 7y ago
  Typically yes. I think Nintendo sometimes turns a profit on consoles due to optimising on other factors than cutting edge power. Consoles can also become profitable over their lifetime as technology matures.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> video games do not make money. The consoles do. Where did this idea come from?
- Double_a_92 7y ago
  Standard Oil probably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_model
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Except that consoles do work on this model, and they are the razor, not the blades. When did you ever hear of someone getting a new console for the game they already have?
    - Double_a_92 7y ago
      Oh, I misread where the "not" was.
friendlybus 7y ago
>because video games do not make money Fortnite made $300 million per month.

nebulous1 7y ago

I don't know about Australia specifically but usually when consumer legislation doesn't mention time frame there's still a limitation on how long after the contract of sale that you can bring a case against the seller, and this serves as the practical time frame as there's no way to enforce a refund without going to court.

inopinatus 7y ago
IANAL but I do run a business that's subject to Australian consumer law. The limitations are not based on the date of the contract of sale, but the date on which the consumer became aware (or reasonably could have been aware) the product was defective, and/or an action was taken by some party to render the product defective. The consumer legislation does specify a six-year time limit from then on, but that clock only just started ticking. However, a refund is not obligatory. Repair i.e. a patch is an acceptable remedy under ACL.
- wyongriver 7y ago
  You may be right but my reading of this would breach the ACL for “Undisturbed Possession of Goods”. That is - unless you told the customer the game had a limited life you can’t stop them using it. Doing so triggers a “remedy” - which - for a “major fault” is a refund. https://consumerlaw.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553FT_ACL-guides_Guarantees_web.pdf https://consumerlaw.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553... (Page 17) This can’t be hidden in a EULA. It has to be prominent or the term will be ruled invalid under the “Unfair Contract Term” provisions of the ACL. For those not familiar, ACL trumps all consumer contracts with standard terms. There are penalties for misrepresenting ACL (eg “No refunds” signs are banned, so are limits to consequential damages. Warranties are for a “reasonable” time, etc. )
  - inopinatus 7y ago
    Whatever you or I might think of DRM, it's not a "major failure" to offer products with it. Other provisions apply, but not that one.