Poll: Should you be able to get a refund on bad games?

[thespyder]

That lets me know, in no uncertain terms, that I'm going to have to use Origin to run the game (which is the only reason I haven't purchased BF3 yet). They're telling me upfront that I'm going to be required to use their DNR system with the game; that's not misrepresenting the product in the slightest. And the same is true of games that run through Steam. So I'm wondering why you think that this somehow represents a lie that you, the innocent consumer, have been tricked by, a shady tactic for which the only justice must be a complete and full refund?

It says that he isn't reading (again).

Most if not all of the complaints fielded thus far can be resolved by the simple application of some restraint and some research. Don't like some element of the game? Don't play the game. or play it and ignore the elements you don't like. But don't cry foul merely because the advertising shinny bauble didn't add up to what you thought it might be.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Unless they specifically advertised the game as being DNR free, how could you possibly claim that including it is a misrepresentation of their products? I'm browsing Amazon and I see this on the product page for Battlefield 3 under system requirements:

Um, this is my bad. I meant NDA, Non-Disclosure Agreement and just got the wrong abbreviation. I could write an entire other essay on DRM and how anti-consumer it is, but won't because really I don't have a better solution.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Um, this is my bad. I meant NDA, Non-Disclosure Agreement and just got the wrong abbreviation. I could write an entire other essay on DRM and how anti-consumer it is, but won't because really I don't have a better solution.

Fair enough. But how often are you subject to an NDA as an end-user of a piece of entertainment software? That doesn't seem like it should ever come up.

I think that DRM that causes legitimate harm to your computer is an obvious area where a refund is fully warranted. I remember people having issues with DRM from Ubisoft and Stardock causing legitimate purchases to stop working completely or actually cause errors within Windows itself, requiring full reinstallations of an operating system; that's a perfect example of a company selling you a product that doesn't perform as expected. And in those situations, the consumer is warranted a complete refund, no questions asked. That's different from a game not living up to your expectations, though. There's a pretty clear distinction between "this game broke my computer, give me my money back," and "this game sucks, I demand a refund."

 

[PowerYoga]

Um, this is my bad. I meant NDA, Non-Disclosure Agreement and just got the wrong abbreviation. I could write an entire other essay on DRM and how anti-consumer it is, but won't because really I don't have a better solution.

Um, NDA typically happens in the early alpha and beta phase of a game. I've NEVER heard of a game where they didn't let the press or reviewers get their hands on it because of an "NDA". A product that has NO exposure is as good as dead. The point of the NDA is to prevent reviews of an unfinished product that can be changing drastically, not to "prevent consumers from knowing how bad the product is" like you seem to think.

Once again, nobody is defending the companies that make bad games. But just because you bought a bad game that you didn't like doesn't entitle you to getting money back like you feel. Contrary to what you may think, if the game runs and doesn't crash, IT IS NOT BROKEN. A bad game is NOT the same as a shirt that doesn't fit or an undercooked burger.

To me and many others, you just look like you're trying to defend your ignorance and sense of entitlement. Do your research before you buy a game, reviews, discussion and even spoilers are out within the first day of release.

Alternatively, just go get your money back on everything you don't like, just tell them it's broken. Problem solved. Just like that nice gentleman that gives the burger back with one bite back because it's a bit "dry".

 

[OVerLoRDI]

No, it would be horrendously abused.

 

[rchiu]

"bad" as buggy, crash to desktop - yeap.
"bad" as story suck, control suck, you don't like it - Nope, should have kicked the tire before you buy.

There is lemon law for car, electronic and other product. No reason why software don't have one, and companies can keep coming up with $hitty code.

 

[Veliko]

No, it would be horrendously abused.

I don't really see this as a compelling argument against allowing refunds.

If I buy an ebook from Amazon I can get a full refund within 7 days.

Instead of running the potential gauntlet of whether I will like a game I have bought or not, I could just pirate it instead.

 

[Golgatha]

Depends. Did you buy a vaccum and expect it to be able to do your dishes, or did you buy a vaccum and expect it to suck dirt up? There's a difference between "claims to do X but doesn't" versus "you expect it to do X and it doesn't". The first is false advertising and you're entitled to get your money back, the second means you should've done your research.

Also, claims it will be fun but in reality isn't doesn't fall into the first category. Really, it doesn't.

No, I'm talking in terms of I expect the game to install properly, launch when I execute the program, and not crash every hour due to buggy code. As far as the fun factor goes, I don't believe you should get a refund due to the game not being "fun".

 

[thespyder]

Originally Posted by OVerLoRDI
No, it would be horrendously abused.

I don't really see this as a compelling argument against allowing refunds.

You don't? Why would that be? if it is horribly abused, eventually the companies will go out of business. And people will abuse it even on good and excellent games and companies. The only ones that will be left standing are the companies that are so underhanded and crooked that they find a way to block this type of behavior (usually with yet further draconian DRM schemes), or companies that make truly craptastic games that no one wants to play

If I buy an ebook from Amazon I can get a full refund within 7 days.

The intent of which is to protect the customer if they have purchased a book by accident, NOT so that they can act like a Library for people with low moral standards.

Instead of running the potential gauntlet of whether I will like a game I have bought or not, I could just pirate it instead.

RE: see above the comment about low moral standards.

 

[Martimus]

No, it would be horrendously abused.

Stardock allows for refunds on their games, and it isn't abused anymore than it is at retail stores. The percentage of DBs that use stuff then return it is pretty small.

That said, it is up to the company whether they have such a policy or not. If the product doesn't work as advertised, the seller is required to refund your money, but I have never attempted to do this as the time and effort required to return something are worth less to me than the money I would receive.

 

[Via]

This thread has a serious amount of confusion in it, and all of it is similar to the confusion that gaming companies have seemingly almost hoped to create.

Mixing the simple ability to return a bad or broken game with piracy, and blending them together into the same nebulous liquid is wrong, any way you choose to look at it.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

 

[thespyder]

Stardock allows for refunds on their games, and it isn't abused anymore than it is at retail stores. The percentage of DBs that use stuff then return it is pretty small.

That said, it is up to the company whether they have such a policy or not. If the product doesn't work as advertised, the seller is required to refund your money, but I have never attempted to do this as the time and effort required to return something are worth less to me than the money I would receive.

Stardock is a relatively small and niche market. I am not really sure you can put that up against the general population and derive any meaningful correlations.

Quite frankly, the more generalized the products, the wider the market, the more they target the lowest common denominator and the more you are likely to get a higher instance of shenanigans.

As for the statement "If the product doesn't work as advertised, the seller is required to refund your money" I think what is mainly being discussed is the various interpretations of the phrase "As advertised". Quite a lot of people (including the OP) seem to think that a dull or boring game constitutes "Not as advertised". And therein lies the problem.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

As for the statement "If the product doesn't work as advertised, the seller is required to refund your money" I think what is mainly being discussed is the various interpretations of the phrase "As advertised". Quite a lot of people (including the OP) seem to think that a dull or boring game constitutes "Not as advertised". And therein lies the problem.

The thread title itself asks if you can get a refund on "bad" games, not "broken" games. Bad sounds like a value judgment on the quality of the game rather than an assessment that a product does not work. That was my immediate interpretation, anyway. I think everyone is in agreement that if you are sold a product that legitimately doesn't function, you should be entitled to a refund.

 

[Veliko]

You don't? Why would that be? if it is horribly abused, eventually the companies will go out of business. And people will abuse it even on good and excellent games and companies. The only ones that will be left standing are the companies that are so underhanded and crooked that they find a way to block this type of behavior (usually with yet further draconian DRM schemes), or companies that make truly craptastic games that no one wants to play.

This argument is the exact same one that is said about piracy and is without merit. Your doomsday scenario would never happen.

The intent of which is to protect the customer if they have purchased a book by accident, NOT so that they can act like a Library for people with low moral standards.

I don't really understand your point here. You predict doom and gloom for the games industry if the ability to get a refund is introduced, yet here you talk about the intent of Amazon's refund policy.

It doesn't matter what the intent is, someone with low moral standards could still use Amazon as a library.

 

[Veliko]

Stardock is a relatively small and niche market. I am not really sure you can put that up against the general population and derive any meaningful correlations.

Quite frankly, the more generalized the products, the wider the market, the more they target the lowest common denominator and the more you are likely to get a higher instance of shenanigans.

Quite frankly, this is nonsense.

Both Stardock and Amazon both have refund policies that allow you to get a refund if you want it. Neither of them are at risk of collapse as a result of it.

The 'shenanigans' argument completely ignores the fact that piracy exists; why would someone constantly faff about paying and getting refunds when they could just pirate it instead?

 

[thespyder]

The thread title itself asks if you can get a refund on "bad" games, not "broken" games. Bad sounds like a value judgment on the quality of the game rather than an assessment that a product does not work. That was my immediate interpretation, anyway. I think everyone is in agreement that if you are sold a product that legitimately doesn't function, you should be entitled to a refund.

That was my interpretation as well. I don't, however, get the feeling everyone thinks/feels that way.

 

[thespyder]

This argument is the exact same one that is said about piracy and is without merit. Your doomsday scenario would never happen.

My 'Doomsday' scenario is already happening. EA (among others) keeps on buying up companies left right and center and turning them into cookie cutter houses with crap games. These companies are ripe for the picking for precisely the reason given, that they can't sell enough legitimate product to make ends meet AND combat fraud/piracy/people abusing return policies.

And anyone who justifies "Cheating the system" by saying "My actions will never bring about the end of something I value" is just fooling themselves.

I don't really understand your point here. You predict doom and gloom for the games industry if the ability to get a refund is introduced, yet here you talk about the intent of Amazon's refund policy.

It doesn't matter what the intent is, someone with low moral standards could still use Amazon as a library.

Yeah, so it helps if you actually pay attention to the context and content of the posts. I am not predicting doom and gloom if companies introduce a refund policy. I am saying, and have said repeatedly, that if the policy that already exists is extended to people's subjective whims (i.e. "I hate BF3, so I should get a refund"), that everyone and their grandmother is going to play the game and then when done, are going to try to get a refund. "Why pay for a game if it is free" type mentality.

And you definitely show where your morals are with your comments. You state that Amazon return policy is (paraphrasing) ripe for abuse and you don't see a problem with that. I stated that the policy, if people were to abide by the intent, shouldn't be a problem. But that unscrupulous people do abuse it, and then use it as justification in their posts. If it is wrong, it is WRONG. Period.

 

[reallyscrued]

How about instead of bitching that we can't return software...everyone boycotts buying games at $50 for like a year?

They'll keep shoveling this shit as long as people keep buying them.

*sigh* Only in a perfect world...

 

[Veliko]

My 'Doomsday' scenario is already happening. EA (among others) keeps on buying up companies left right and center and turning them into cookie cutter houses with crap games. These companies are ripe for the picking for precisely the reason given, that they can't sell enough legitimate product to make ends meet AND combat fraud/piracy/people abusing return policies.

And anyone who justifies "Cheating the system" by saying "My actions will never bring about the end of something I value" is just fooling themselves.

None of this has anything to do with getting refunds on games.

Yeah, so it helps if you actually pay attention to the context and content of the posts. I am not predicting doom and gloom if companies introduce a refund policy. I am saying, and have said repeatedly, that if the policy that already exists is extended to people's subjective whims (i.e. "I hate BF3, so I should get a refund"), that everyone and their grandmother is going to play the game and then when done, are going to try to get a refund. "Why pay for a game if it is free" type mentality.

What 'policy that already' exists are you talking about here?

If BF3 doesn't work on my PC for some reason, how would I go about getting a refund?

If BF3 works fine but I don't like it, what is stopping me from just lying and getting a refund using the 'policy that already exists'?

And you definitely show where your morals are with your comments. You state that Amazon return policy is (paraphrasing) ripe for abuse and you don't see a problem with that. I stated that the policy, if people were to abide by the intent, shouldn't be a problem. But that unscrupulous people do abuse it, and then use it as justification in their posts. If it is wrong, it is WRONG. Period.

I am an indie author who sells books on Amazon. I have no problem with the refund policy that they have. Yes, it is open to abuse, but that is not a good reason to get rid of it.

Post-release patching of games has been abused for a decade or more by developers and publishers but that is not a good argument to abolish the concept of it.

'Buying' positive reviews in computer game magazines has been used and abused by developers and publishers for decades but that is not a good argument to get rid of reviews.

 

[AVP]

Yes except...

Are you incapable of READING a review? Hilarious.

 

[Mem]

How about instead of bitching that we can't return software...everyone boycotts buying games at $50 for like a year?

They'll keep shoveling this shit as long as people keep buying them.

*sigh* Only in a perfect world...

Why?..you can buy a budget game if you want rather then spend $50,end of the day its your choice so nobody is forcing you to buy a game ,what about if pirates stop pirating games and consumers do some proper research before buying a game.


Do you buy a video/gaming card without research?

 

[thespyder]

None of this has anything to do with getting refunds on games.

Originally posted by thespyder
they can't sell enough legitimate product to make ends meet AND combat fraud/piracy/people abusing return policies

I see what you mean. what was I thinking, actually READING my own post?

What 'policy that already' exists are you talking about here?

If BF3 doesn't work on my PC for some reason, how would I go about getting a refund?

Try it sometime. If your game legitimately doesn’t work, “Most” companies will return /refund your money as a matter of policy. Or at minimum, make every effort to make it run on your system. Not all, but most.

If BF3 works fine but I don't like it, what is stopping me from just lying and getting a refund using the 'policy that already exists'?

Um, honesty? Self respect? Dignity? Doing the right thing? Not wanting to screw someone else for my own selfish gain? Understanding that every time I steal from someone else, that someone who worked hard to make an honest living making something for me actually is getting screwed out of food or rent money or the ability to feed and cloth and take care of their children?

Failing that (for the more selfish among us), realizing that my actions might in a very real way cause something that I enjoy to be discontinued? Realizing that DRM impacts me and that every time I abuse a software license, that companies like EA up their DRM strategy, thus impacting me? Just a thought.

I am an indie author who sells books on Amazon. I have no problem with the refund policy that they have. Yes, it is open to abuse, but that is not a good reason to get rid of it.

Great. You haven’t been burned by it. That is awesome for you. Just because you have never tripped and fallen, doesn’t mean the no one has. Do you also believe that, just because you don't have cancer (always assuming you don't), that all cancer research is a waste of time? What a teeny, tiny world you must live in.

Post-release patching of games has been abused for a decade or more by developers and publishers but that is not a good argument to abolish the concept of it.

'Buying' positive reviews in computer game magazines has been used and abused by developers and publishers for decades but that is not a good argument to get rid of reviews.

So your stance is that just because some publishers are not honest, it is therefore OK to be dishonest in return? Interesting.

 

[Chaotic42]

How about instead of bitching that we can't return software...everyone boycotts buying games at $50 for like a year?

They'll keep shoveling this shit as long as people keep buying them.

*sigh* Only in a perfect world...

Well, as far back as I can remember, games were about $50, so they've gone down in real price over the years. Plenty of games are worth $50. Each Mass Effect certainly was. I've probably gotten $200 worth of fun out of Civ 4. I'll admit that BF3 can justify its $50 price tag. It's very pretty and if you enjoy the system, I'm sure it's a blast. I haven't noticed it being buggy.

Then there are games like Civ 5 that make me cry on the inside. Maybe we need to stop buying shooters that are released on the console and PC. Mass Effect's combat was terrible, the story and delivery made up for that.

 

[thespyder]

Well, as far back as I can remember, games were about $50, so they've gone down in real price over the years. Plenty of games are worth $50. Each Mass Effect certainly was. I've probably gotten $200 worth of fun out of Civ 4. I'll admit that BF3 can justify its $50 price tag. It's very pretty and if you enjoy the system, I'm sure it's a blast. I haven't noticed it being buggy.

Then there are games like Civ 5 that make me cry on the inside. Maybe we need to stop buying shooters that are released on the console and PC. Mass Effect's combat was terrible, the story and delivery made up for that.

A lot of people complain about the price of games these days. Way I see it, games are pretty cheap for the value (assuming a quality game). I consider that if I get 20 hours of good solid fun from a game, that is less than $3 an hour of fun. And with games like Skyrim and KoA:R, I have put in more than a hundred hours in them, making for something like $.50 an hour. Compare that to $40 for two (plus popcorn and a soda) for an hour and a half movie, or $60 for a meal that keeps you fed for a few hours. It's pretty economical in my book.

Of course, then there are crap games out there. And that is where it all breaks down. maybe just boycott the crap games/developers?

 

[Veliko]

thespyder, I am struggling to find any consistency in what you are saying.

You predict the collapse of developers if people can get a refund, yet then you tell me how I would go about getting a refund on my faulty copy of BF3; do you agree with being able to get a refund on games or not?

Also, given that you don't have access to my Amazon Self-Publishing account, I don't see how it is in any way possible for you to know if I have been burned by Amazon's refund policy. In fact even I have no way of seeing if I have been burned by it.

All I see is the number of sales and the number of refunds. I have no idea if the refunds are from people buying the wrong book, people not liking what I wrote or from people reading the whole thing and getting a refund. For all I know it could be the same person buying it and getting a refund over and over again.