4 ms·

FYI, the ACCC has successfully won victories against Steam refusing to provide refunds for faulty games. Just because it's a digital product doesn't mean you do

by dannyw 6y ago

FYI, the ACCC has successfully won victories against Steam refusing to provide refunds for faulty games. Just because it's a digital product doesn't mean you don't have consumer rights. If you buy a physical good and it doesn't work towards its described specifications, you deserve a refund. If you buy a digital good and you meet the system requirements but it doesn't work, you deserve a refund.

judge2020 6y ago
I think the steam problem was a store vs publisher issue. When No Man's Sky first released, you couldn't refund if you had player for more than 2 hours even though it was a faulty game. After the bad press spread, Steam stepped in and accepted refunds far past the 2 hour 'time played' requirement [0]. If Gamestop sells a faulty or unfinished game by EA (like Anthem), should Gamestop be obligated to refund you or should they ask the publisher if they want to refund the customer since the publisher might promise better future stability? 0: https://bgr.com/2016/08/29/no-mans-sky-refund-steam-pc-ps4-support-ticket/ https://bgr.com/2016/08/29/no-mans-sky-refund-steam-pc-ps4-s...
- jlawer 6y ago
  Australian Consumer Law has many provisions based on the fact that many companies are not always able to be fully sued in Australia. In order to prevent this the end retailer is responsible for ensuring consumer rights. Of course the expectation is that the final retailer then claims against their distributor who then claims against the manufacturer / publisher. However this has been a problem with some digital marketplaces as they entered the Australian market. For tax reasons many products were sold via a Irish or Singaporean subsidiary and thus tried to avoid taxation on the sales (even some were selling in $AU from these offshore locations). As these loopholes were closed many companies essentially accepted they had Australian presences (mostly due to the changes around tax). However Australia has some fairly strong consumer protections (at least on paper), fairly broad statutes (terms like "reasonable durability" and "fit for purpose") and a fairly active consumer rights defender (ACCC) and many organisations have avoided Furthermore consumer rights cannot be removed via EULA agreements and such. Many organisations didn't change their systems for Australia as they were "mostly" compliant, and considered that digital goods were "New" and "Different" from the rules that affected physical products and retail operators. So under Australian Law.... yes. Gamestop (or more likely EB games in Australia) is liable for the refund. However they can then turn to their suppliers and sue them for breach of contract for supplying defective products. It is reasonable Future stability doesn't come into it, as the product was sold misleadingly. EB Games has already been taken to task over this for Fallout 76 and trying to claim people aren't entitled to a refund. 0: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/eb-games-undertakes-to-refund-consumers-for-the-fallout-76-game https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/eb-games-undertakes-to...
  - chris_wot 6y ago
    * Many organisations didn't change their systems for Australia as they were "mostly" compliant, and considered that digital goods were "New" and "Different" from the rules that affected physical products and retail operators.* And their arrogance cost them dearly.
- throwawaynothx 6y ago
  Na, Steam never offered refunds at all prior to the ACCC Stepping in. then they had the whole 'hours played' refund.
- paranoidrobot 6y ago
  Steam has a long history of refusing to comply with ACL. It was a convenient excuse for them to say "Not our problem, contact the publisher" and the publisher being all "We didn't sell it to you, Steam did". I've tried getting refunds for clearly broken games, but Steam gave their usual b.s response. After the ACCC win, Steam came back with a "Sorry you played it for more htan 2 hours". Which for a whole bunch of games is barely getting started.
  - josefx 6y ago
    For most games it is enough to see if it is playable without being able to finish the game. A lot of games can be finished over a weekend so a prolonged test period would just ask to be abused. No Mans Sky was especially evil since it would take a bit of time to leave the first planet and see that all the promised features weren't implemented.
    - account42 6y ago
      Almost like a fixed 2 hour limit doesn't make sense. Steam already tracks achievements and average time played for all players. They are in a very good position to provide refunds after 2 hours playtime while minimizing the risk from refund fraud.
- akdor1154 6y ago
  > If Gamestop sells a faulty or unfinished game by EA (like Anthem), should Gamestop be obligated to refund you [...] ? Yes (in Australia). The responsibility for not selling faulty shit is ultimately with the retailer. Doesn't matter if it's a TV, a car, a kid's toy, or some software.
- indymike 6y ago
  A retailer takes on responsibility to back the product they sell. Usually there are channels (i.e. RMAs & loss allowances) that are provided by the distributor or OEM to help retailers take care of this function. In short, if you want to distribute your product through retail, you have to support that model. Consumers do have rights and one of them is to be able to get a refund for unsatisfactory/defective product, even if it is digital.
Benjamin_Dobell 6y ago
Last I checked Nintendo, even operating as Nintendo Australia, are still refusing to provide refunds. In April 2019 I contact Nintendo, as Trials Rising had just come out and I purchased it digitally. Upon first playing the game I discovered that it ran very poorly, was dropping frames frequently and causing input problems; particularly when in hand-held mode whilst playing through the tutorials and first level. They sent me on a wild goose chase to "Nintendo Contact Center Europe" and I of course never got a refund. After realising I was getting nowhere I caved and attempted to play some more. Fortunately, I discovered most of the game is at least playable. Not sure why the first level in particular performed so poorly. If I go back and play it now, it's still horrid performance. Overall, the game doesn't operate as I'd expect, is at least partially faulty, and probably shouldn't be for sale in its current state. I would have preferred to refund and instead buy on PC. EDIT: I did actually report Nintendo's no refunds policy to the ACCC. However, they're very busy due to all the shotty companies, so I'm a bit doubtful it was ever looked into.
- echelon 6y ago
  Knowing Nintendo, they probably don't have a way to revoke the licenses. They're not very good at the online thing, or the digital store thing. Their core competency is in hardware and games, and the rest of the org just sort of gets dragged along for the ride. If it's as I hypothesize and they can't revoke software licenses, I think their stance is reasonable from the perspective that this could be used to acquire all the games for free. But I think they should be compelled to fix this going forward.
  - octodog 6y ago
    That's not reasonable at all. If their product doesn't work, you are entitled to a refund. Whether or not their systems allow them to refund you in a manner that _suits them_ is irrelevant.
    - the8472 6y ago
      > If their product doesn't work, you are entitled to a refund. Or a fix?

by dannyw 6y ago

judge2020 6y ago

I think the steam problem was a store vs publisher issue. When No Man's Sky first released, you couldn't refund if you had player for more than 2 hours even though it was a faulty game. After the bad press spread, Steam stepped in and accepted refunds far past the 2 hour 'time played' requirement [0]. If Gamestop sells a faulty or unfinished game by EA (like Anthem), should Gamestop be obligated to refund you or should they ask the publisher if they want to refund the customer since the publisher might promise better future stability? 0: https://bgr.com/2016/08/29/no-mans-sky-refund-steam-pc-ps4-support-ticket/ https://bgr.com/2016/08/29/no-mans-sky-refund-steam-pc-ps4-s...

jlawer 6y ago
Australian Consumer Law has many provisions based on the fact that many companies are not always able to be fully sued in Australia. In order to prevent this the end retailer is responsible for ensuring consumer rights. Of course the expectation is that the final retailer then claims against their distributor who then claims against the manufacturer / publisher. However this has been a problem with some digital marketplaces as they entered the Australian market. For tax reasons many products were sold via a Irish or Singaporean subsidiary and thus tried to avoid taxation on the sales (even some were selling in $AU from these offshore locations). As these loopholes were closed many companies essentially accepted they had Australian presences (mostly due to the changes around tax). However Australia has some fairly strong consumer protections (at least on paper), fairly broad statutes (terms like "reasonable durability" and "fit for purpose") and a fairly active consumer rights defender (ACCC) and many organisations have avoided Furthermore consumer rights cannot be removed via EULA agreements and such. Many organisations didn't change their systems for Australia as they were "mostly" compliant, and considered that digital goods were "New" and "Different" from the rules that affected physical products and retail operators. So under Australian Law.... yes. Gamestop (or more likely EB games in Australia) is liable for the refund. However they can then turn to their suppliers and sue them for breach of contract for supplying defective products. It is reasonable Future stability doesn't come into it, as the product was sold misleadingly. EB Games has already been taken to task over this for Fallout 76 and trying to claim people aren't entitled to a refund. 0: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/eb-games-undertakes-to-refund-consumers-for-the-fallout-76-game https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/eb-games-undertakes-to...
- chris_wot 6y ago
  * Many organisations didn't change their systems for Australia as they were "mostly" compliant, and considered that digital goods were "New" and "Different" from the rules that affected physical products and retail operators.* And their arrogance cost them dearly.
throwawaynothx 6y ago
Na, Steam never offered refunds at all prior to the ACCC Stepping in. then they had the whole 'hours played' refund.
paranoidrobot 6y ago
Steam has a long history of refusing to comply with ACL. It was a convenient excuse for them to say "Not our problem, contact the publisher" and the publisher being all "We didn't sell it to you, Steam did". I've tried getting refunds for clearly broken games, but Steam gave their usual b.s response. After the ACCC win, Steam came back with a "Sorry you played it for more htan 2 hours". Which for a whole bunch of games is barely getting started.
- josefx 6y ago
  For most games it is enough to see if it is playable without being able to finish the game. A lot of games can be finished over a weekend so a prolonged test period would just ask to be abused. No Mans Sky was especially evil since it would take a bit of time to leave the first planet and see that all the promised features weren't implemented.
  - account42 6y ago
    Almost like a fixed 2 hour limit doesn't make sense. Steam already tracks achievements and average time played for all players. They are in a very good position to provide refunds after 2 hours playtime while minimizing the risk from refund fraud.
akdor1154 6y ago
> If Gamestop sells a faulty or unfinished game by EA (like Anthem), should Gamestop be obligated to refund you [...] ? Yes (in Australia). The responsibility for not selling faulty shit is ultimately with the retailer. Doesn't matter if it's a TV, a car, a kid's toy, or some software.
indymike 6y ago
A retailer takes on responsibility to back the product they sell. Usually there are channels (i.e. RMAs & loss allowances) that are provided by the distributor or OEM to help retailers take care of this function. In short, if you want to distribute your product through retail, you have to support that model. Consumers do have rights and one of them is to be able to get a refund for unsatisfactory/defective product, even if it is digital.

Benjamin_Dobell 6y ago

Last I checked Nintendo, even operating as Nintendo Australia, are still refusing to provide refunds. In April 2019 I contact Nintendo, as Trials Rising had just come out and I purchased it digitally. Upon first playing the game I discovered that it ran very poorly, was dropping frames frequently and causing input problems; particularly when in hand-held mode whilst playing through the tutorials and first level. They sent me on a wild goose chase to "Nintendo Contact Center Europe" and I of course never got a refund. After realising I was getting nowhere I caved and attempted to play some more. Fortunately, I discovered most of the game is at least playable. Not sure why the first level in particular performed so poorly. If I go back and play it now, it's still horrid performance. Overall, the game doesn't operate as I'd expect, is at least partially faulty, and probably shouldn't be for sale in its current state. I would have preferred to refund and instead buy on PC. EDIT: I did actually report Nintendo's no refunds policy to the ACCC. However, they're very busy due to all the shotty companies, so I'm a bit doubtful it was ever looked into.

echelon 6y ago
Knowing Nintendo, they probably don't have a way to revoke the licenses. They're not very good at the online thing, or the digital store thing. Their core competency is in hardware and games, and the rest of the org just sort of gets dragged along for the ride. If it's as I hypothesize and they can't revoke software licenses, I think their stance is reasonable from the perspective that this could be used to acquire all the games for free. But I think they should be compelled to fix this going forward.
- octodog 6y ago
  That's not reasonable at all. If their product doesn't work, you are entitled to a refund. Whether or not their systems allow them to refund you in a manner that _suits them_ is irrelevant.
  - the8472 6y ago
    > If their product doesn't work, you are entitled to a refund. Or a fix?