4 ms·

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 ju

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?
    - hugh-avherald 6y ago
      If the product doesn't work (at all), you are entitled to a refund. You are also entitled to a fix/replacement, but it's the consumer's choice. Hinges on whether the product has a "major failure" or a (lesser) defect.
- Benjamin_Dobell 6y ago
  I've no doubt what you've written is the case. However, incompetence is rarely an admissible defense for breaking the law.
- retSava 6y ago
  I think having it forced upon them to refund games would be a great motivator to implement any such missing mechanism. I think companies in general gets too much of a free pass when it comes to their responsibilities and too much of free reign when it comes to what they can do when they claim their rights. For example, if I'm late with a payment for a product, the punishment is by default going to be of the "eff you, pay us"-kind, while the opposite often ends up in the "oopsie, my bad you had to wait a few months for that refund, and had to cancel the sub by fax". I really think consumer laws in general should be improved and enforced more. Pretty happy with those in Sweden, although many (also big) brands try to sneak their way out of them.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > 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. Doesn't sound reasonable to me. The law doesn't cease to apply when a business finds compliance to be inconvenient. At least, it shouldn't.
  - squiggleblaz 6y ago
    Indeed. "If it's as I hypothesise and they can't afford a loaf of bread, I think their stance is reasonable from the perspective that this could be used to starve them to death" You can always tell if something is reasonable by changing it from a company screwing an individual into an individual screwing a company. If an individual hurts a company to survive, we normally see that is illegal quite quickly. It's only when a company hurts an individual in order to make a profit that we struggle.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      I'm not sure I see the value in that. My point was about consistent enforcement of laws that are on the books. Stealing to avoid starvation, is a very different moral question.
nl 6y ago
Sony Entertainment recently had to pay a $3.5M fine for similar behaviour. The Federal Court has ordered Sony Interactive Entertainment Network Europe Limited (Sony Europe) to pay $3.5 million in penalties for making false and misleading representations on its website and in dealings with Australian consumers about their Australian Consumer Law (ACL) rights. Sony Europe made misleading representations to four consumers who believed they had purchased faulty PlayStation games. This occurred when Sony’s customer service representatives told them over the phone Sony Europe was not required to refund the game once it had been downloaded, or if 14 days had passed since it was purchased. “Consumer guarantee rights do not expire after a digital product has been downloaded and certainly do not disappear after 14 days or any other arbitrary date claimed by a game store or developer,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said. The Court also declared Sony Europe breached the ACL by telling one of the four consumers it did not have to provide a refund unless the game developer authorised it, and by telling a fifth consumer that Sony Europe could provide a refund using virtual PlayStation currency instead of money. Unfortunately it's a slow process though. https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/sony-to-pay-35-million-penalty-for-misrepresenting-playstation-gamers%E2%80%99-rights https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/sony-to-pay-35-million...

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?
  - hugh-avherald 6y ago
    If the product doesn't work (at all), you are entitled to a refund. You are also entitled to a fix/replacement, but it's the consumer's choice. Hinges on whether the product has a "major failure" or a (lesser) defect.
Benjamin_Dobell 6y ago
I've no doubt what you've written is the case. However, incompetence is rarely an admissible defense for breaking the law.
retSava 6y ago
I think having it forced upon them to refund games would be a great motivator to implement any such missing mechanism. I think companies in general gets too much of a free pass when it comes to their responsibilities and too much of free reign when it comes to what they can do when they claim their rights. For example, if I'm late with a payment for a product, the punishment is by default going to be of the "eff you, pay us"-kind, while the opposite often ends up in the "oopsie, my bad you had to wait a few months for that refund, and had to cancel the sub by fax". I really think consumer laws in general should be improved and enforced more. Pretty happy with those in Sweden, although many (also big) brands try to sneak their way out of them.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> 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. Doesn't sound reasonable to me. The law doesn't cease to apply when a business finds compliance to be inconvenient. At least, it shouldn't.
- squiggleblaz 6y ago
  Indeed. "If it's as I hypothesise and they can't afford a loaf of bread, I think their stance is reasonable from the perspective that this could be used to starve them to death" You can always tell if something is reasonable by changing it from a company screwing an individual into an individual screwing a company. If an individual hurts a company to survive, we normally see that is illegal quite quickly. It's only when a company hurts an individual in order to make a profit that we struggle.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    I'm not sure I see the value in that. My point was about consistent enforcement of laws that are on the books. Stealing to avoid starvation, is a very different moral question.

nl 6y ago

Sony Entertainment recently had to pay a $3.5M fine for similar behaviour. The Federal Court has ordered Sony Interactive Entertainment Network Europe Limited (Sony Europe) to pay $3.5 million in penalties for making false and misleading representations on its website and in dealings with Australian consumers about their Australian Consumer Law (ACL) rights. Sony Europe made misleading representations to four consumers who believed they had purchased faulty PlayStation games. This occurred when Sony’s customer service representatives told them over the phone Sony Europe was not required to refund the game once it had been downloaded, or if 14 days had passed since it was purchased. “Consumer guarantee rights do not expire after a digital product has been downloaded and certainly do not disappear after 14 days or any other arbitrary date claimed by a game store or developer,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said. The Court also declared Sony Europe breached the ACL by telling one of the four consumers it did not have to provide a refund unless the game developer authorised it, and by telling a fifth consumer that Sony Europe could provide a refund using virtual PlayStation currency instead of money. Unfortunately it's a slow process though. https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/sony-to-pay-35-million-penalty-for-misrepresenting-playstation-gamers%E2%80%99-rights https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/sony-to-pay-35-million...