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

[thespyder]

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

I can't help if you can't see consistency where it clearly exists. That isn't my problem.

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?

Again, not my problem that you selectively read. I have always made it perfectly clear that my concern is people abusing refund policies based on subjective likes rather than something actually being broken. Just because you exclude that simple fact from your posts, does not make you right.

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.

You claim not to be worried about people abusing the Amazon return policy. I extrapolated that you hadn't been stung, at least not to a degree that you felt it. that is a very simple assumption from your attitude. If you had anticipated profits of X level but had realized profits of X - 30% and thought to investigate it, you may have found that the 30% was due to refund fraud (effectively). then you might be more concerned about people doing that type of thing.

Or maybe you aren't. Maybe you are perfectly happy with people robbing you. Or maybe you have never had anyone 'Buy' your book, read it and then return it because they wanted to read but not pay. Or maybe it has happened, but not enough to impact you. In any case, it has happened to others and significantly enough that they care. maybe not enough to lobby for it to be changed, but to say blanketly that abuse of Amazon return policy is OK for everyone since you don't see it's ills, seems pretty short sighted (to me). But Amazon's return policy is not the issue in question. Video game returns "For Subjective reasons" are.

 

[Veliko]

Again, not my problem that you selectively read. I have always made it perfectly clear that my concern is people abusing refund policies based on subjective likes rather than something actually being broken. Just because you exclude that simple fact from your posts, does not make you right.

So again, are you FOR allowing refunds or AGAINST allowing refunds for games?

You claim not to be worried about people abusing the Amazon return policy. I extrapolated that you hadn't been stung, at least not to a degree that you felt it. that is a very simple assumption from your attitude. If you had anticipated profits of X level but had realized profits of X - 30% and thought to investigate it, you may have found that the 30% was due to refund fraud (effectively). then you might be more concerned about people doing that type of thing.

Or maybe you aren't. Maybe you are perfectly happy with people robbing you. Or maybe you have never had anyone 'Buy' your book, read it and then return it because they wanted to read but not pay. Or maybe it has happened, but not enough to impact you. In any case, it has happened to others and significantly enough that they care. maybe not enough to lobby for it to be changed, but to say blanketly that abuse of Amazon return policy is OK for everyone since you don't see it's ills, seems pretty short sighted (to me).

When you say "it has happened to others" who are you referring to?

I also haven't said that abuse of the Amazon policy is ok, I said that the possibility of abuse is not a good enough reason for the policy to be changed.

But Amazon's return policy is not the issue in question. Video game returns "For Subjective reasons" are.

Well both video games and ebooks are as digital as each other so I don't see why they cannot be compared in this way.

 

[thespyder]

So again, are you FOR allowing refunds or AGAINST allowing refunds for games?

No contradiction at all. If it is clearly broken, then get a refund (or a fix). what is by and large being discussed is wanting a refund based on subjective reasons. The thread was started because the OP didn't like their experience with BF3. Which I am firmly against.

My definition is very simple. Does it boot up? Does it run (on appropriate hardware) at greater than 10 fps. Does it not CTD periodically. Does it not eat hard drives (no lie, an early version of Diablo did that). Pretty much it.

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.

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 you can't see my stance, or how ridiculous your generalization is (attempting to beg the question) from that, then I see no reason to make it any clearer.

I also haven't said that abuse of the Amazon policy is ok, I said that the possibility of abuse is not a good enough reason for the policy to be changed.

Neither have I. I have said it isn't a valid comparison to what is being discussed.

Well both video games and ebooks are as digital as each other so I don't see why they cannot be compared in this way.

Video game compatibility rates are significantly higher than Ebooks.

Manufacturing costs of video games are significantly higher than for books in general.

Profit margins for video games are significantly higher than for books (in general).

Should I continue? Humans and Whales are both mammals, but you won't see me selling a three piece suit to a whale.

 

[Veliko]

If you can't see my stance, or how ridiculous your generalization is (attempting to beg the question) from that, then I see no reason to make it any clearer.

Neither have I. I have said it isn't a valid comparison to what is being discussed.

Well if you are for the ability to get refunds on games, why all the talk of developers crashing and getting bought out by EA if it is abused?

Video game compatibility rates are significantly higher than Ebooks.

Manufacturing costs of video games are significantly higher than for books in general.

Profit margins for video games are significantly higher than for books (in general).

Should I continue? Humans and Whales are both mammals, but you won't see me selling a three piece suit to a whale.

No, because it is a ridiculous comparison. All mammals have to eat though and if that is what was being discussed then comparing humans and whales would be fine.

In the case of ebooks and computer games, I see no reason for the refund policies to be different. Compatibility rates, manufacturing costs and profit margins have nothing to do with it.

 

[thespyder]

...snip...

So, failure on your part to understand that I am not against refunds, but against abuse of refunds based on subjective issues (i.e. the point of the entire thread, and the emphasis that has been made several times throughout it), even when it is spelled out to you, is not my problem.

You continue to try and generalize the issue so that some semblance of your argument can make any kind of sense. Not my problem.

 

[Veliko]

Is this yours?

 

[thespyder]

And the failure of an argument leading to meaningless attempts at insults, not withstanding....

 

[Veliko]

And the failure of an argument leading to meaningless attempts at insults, not withstanding....

All you posted was "snip" and acted stroppy.

There is nothing to respond to.

 

[thespyder]

Well if you are for the ability to get refunds on games, why all the talk of developers crashing and getting bought out by EA if it is abused?

Please read my quoted comments and answer the question, What type of refunds am I for and which type of refunds am I against?

 

[Veliko]

Please read my quoted comments and answer the question, What type of refunds am I for and which type of refunds am I against?

You said you were for refunds for things that don't work. You are against refunds for frivolous reasons.

However I fail to see how that is connected to your doom and gloom comments about developers being bought out if it is abused in some way.

It is exactly the same arguments used about piracy, which are largely nonsense. Some publishers even say that the second hand games market have kept prices high and caused studios to go bust. Again, it's nonsense.

 

[thespyder]

You said you were for refunds for things that don't work. You are against refunds for frivolous reasons.

However I fail to see how that is connected to your doom and gloom comments about developers being bought out if it is abused in some way.

Refunds for things that are broken, keeps the publishers in check. It prevents them from grinding out technically craptastic games that simply don't work out of the box. And it is something that they have 100% control over. If they make something that is broken, they have only themselves to blame.

Refunds for aesthetic reasons such as "I hated BF3" are 100% subjective. An artist has no control over if the viewer likes the art. And couldn't and shouldn't be held responsible for same. They make the art. You or I may not like it, but it isn't for us to like. We don't have to buy it either, but that is a separate matter.

And the publishers should not be punished for putting out something that they believe is good, simply because the public doesn't agree. Nor should they be held accountable for people who purchase without researching what they are buying. They aren't your mommy.

Since the publishers have control over grinding out the first type of issue, they can prevent it from undercutting their bottom line by ensuring quality at manufacture.

Since subjective issues are not in the control of the artist, but in the eye of the beholder, a publisher could make what they believe to be a masterpiece, and it could still fail. Therefore returns based on this type of issue are beyond the control of the publisher and can not be eliminated or controlled for. And can lead to the end of a company, or at the very least reduce the bottom line to a point where they are ripe for being taken over.

Bottom line is, technical difficulties = stupid company. Subjective issues = stupid consumer.

It is exactly the same arguments used about piracy, which are largely nonsense. Some publishers even say that the second hand games market have kept prices high and caused studios to go bust. Again, it's nonsense.

Actually it isn't the same argument as piracy. Sure, piracy cuts into profits. I don't for a second believe the degree to which companies claim that it does, but theft of a product does equate to the possibility that the would-be thief might have purchased instead. But it is by no means a 1 to 1 comparison. Price, availability and features all factor into that equation, which the Production companies don't factor in their published statistics.

But refunds are real and quantifiable. Piracy is projection and conjecture. Refunds based on defects are preventable. Piracy is largely not so (as any hacker will tell you). But the main difference is, you can factor in Piracy as a known quantity and predictable effect on the bottom line. Returns based on subjective factors is not and is largely unpredictable.

Not to mention the fact that it is easier for less moral people to justify a "Return" as not actually pirating a game, and therefore OK to do in their minds. It isn't, but people will justify it to be so.

 

[Veliko]

Since subjective issues are not in the control of the artist, but in the eye of the beholder, a publisher could make what they believe to be a masterpiece, and it could still fail. Therefore returns based on this type of issue are beyond the control of the publisher and can not be eliminated or controlled for.

And how would you go about differentiating between one type of refund and another?

And can lead to the end of a company, or at the very least reduce the bottom line to a point where they are ripe for being taken over.

No, that cannot happen due to people getting refunds on an otherwise fine product.

Actually it isn't the same argument as piracy. Sure, piracy cuts into profits. I don't for a second believe the degree to which companies claim that it does, but theft of a product does equate to the possibility that the would-be thief might have purchased instead. But it is by no means a 1 to 1 comparison. Price, availability and features all factor into that equation, which the Production companies don't factor in their published statistics.

But refunds are real and quantifiable. Piracy is projection and conjecture. Refunds based on defects are preventable. Piracy is largely not so (as any hacker will tell you). But the main difference is, you can factor in Piracy as a known quantity and predictable effect on the bottom line. Returns based on subjective factors is not and is largely unpredictable.

Not to mention the fact that it is easier for less moral people to justify a "Return" as not actually pirating a game, and therefore OK to do in their minds. It isn't, but people will justify it to be so.

All you are doing here is fussing over minute details and extrapolating them to a vastly inflated degree.

If someone pirates your game you don't get a sale.
If someone buys your game and then gets a refund you don't get a sale.

That's it.

 

[thespyder]

And how would you go about differentiating between one type of refund and another?

You can't seriously be asking this question after I have already given the definition above. If the thing doesn't fire up at all due to technical difficulties, that is broken. It is provable and verifiable.

No, that cannot happen due to people getting refunds on an otherwise fine product.

In your opinion. profit margins for smaller companies can easily be overshadowed by poor sales on an otherwise good product. Add to that returns based on a highly subjective market, and it could absolutely tip the scales.

All you are doing here is fussing over minute details and extrapolating them to a vastly inflated degree.

If someone pirates your game you don't get a sale.
If someone buys your game and then gets a refund you don't get a sale.

That's it.

That is absolutely not it.

A refund usually involves customer service, which needs to be paid. It also requires a payment process, which needs to be paid. A return mechanism, which needs to be paid, restocking, which needs to be paid. And can often lead to product not on the shelf (in the case of non electronic forms of the game) where it could be purchased by another consumer. In short, it costs money above and beyond the cost of the product itself. And all (in a subjective return) for factors that the publisher has no control over.

Piracy is largely electronic in nature these days and therefore has a significantly smaller financial footprint. Also, it can be predicted and factored into the retail price of the product. Returns of a subjective nature can't.

 

[Veliko]

You can't seriously be asking this question after I have already given the definition above. If the thing doesn't fire up at all due to technical difficulties, that is broken. It is provable and verifiable.

I see. And if I requested a refund for a game, how does the company prove and verify that I am telling the truth?

In your opinion. profit margins for smaller companies can easily be overshadowed by poor sales on an otherwise good product. Add to that returns based on a highly subjective market, and it could absolutely tip the scales.

Poor sales and poor sales due to refunds are two very different things.

That is absolutely not it.

A refund usually involves customer service, which needs to be paid. It also requires a payment process, which needs to be paid. A return mechanism, which needs to be paid, restocking, which needs to be paid. And can often lead to product not on the shelf (in the case of non electronic forms of the game) where it could be purchased by another consumer. In short, it costs money above and beyond the cost of the product itself. And all (in a subjective return) for factors that the publisher has no control over.

Piracy is largely electronic in nature these days and therefore has a significantly smaller financial footprint. Also, it can be predicted and factored into the retail price of the product. Returns of a subjective nature can't.

Once again you are extrapolating the details to the nth degree.

Stores and business do not go bust due to people abusing the ability to return items any more than they go bust because of piracy or the second hand market.

 

[thespyder]

I see. And if I requested a refund for a game, how does the company prove and verify that I am telling the truth?

Poor sales and poor sales due to refunds are two very different things.

Once again you are extrapolating the details to the nth degree.

Once again we reach a point where I am not adding value to the conversation through being unable to get you to understand valid points, and you are not adding value by failing to listen to the argument or accept it's validity.

Stores and business do not go bust due to people abusing the ability to return items any more than they go bust because of piracy or the second hand market.

Stores go bust for both reasons.


done. My recommendation. Don't start your own business. Or if you do, check back in a few years and see if anything that you discounted here makes sense then.

 

[reallyscrued]

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?

Hm, you seem to be angry with me for some reason. I never said anyone was forcing anyone to buy games at a certain price. And who the hell mentioned pirates? The point sailed over your head.

My tone was not to criticize anyone, so back off and stop being offended on everyone's behalf for a second. Let me break down some things to get my point across more clearly:

1. I did not make this thread. I'm not complaining about the price of games. I do not buy games at $50. (BF3 is the sole exception, damn that marketing got to me.)

2. I research all my games before buying. I do not regret the purchase of any of my games.

3. I DO buy games when they get cheaper, and that exactly was my suggestion to everyone who bitches we should be able to 'return' games. *INSTEAD* of bitching, quit buying games at $50 and buy them for what you think they are worth when they are worth that price.

Thus, me making my comment 'if we just all quit buying games at $50 bucks, you can buy them at whatever price you want.'

Hope this clears that up.

I've probably gotten $200 worth of fun out of Civ 4.

...Wha? I love how people quantify how much money your fun is worth, and vice versa. It's completely subjective and makes no sense really. How much money did Civ 4 cost you? That's exactly how much of it's 'worth' you got out of it.

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.

This analogy makes no sense. You play video games because its the most economical?
Using this line of thought, everyone here would just end up with closets full of board games.


This whole thread got insanely derailed. Wasn't this about returning games? Since everything is going the way of DRM anyway, what about if every game came with a counter of how much playtime you spent with it. Give everything a baseline of like...10 hours. If you spend more than 10 hours on the game, no refund for you. If you played an hour and didn't like it, you can get 9/10ths of your money back.

...God, I bet DiCE would've loved to see that policy.

 

[reallyscrued]

Once again we reach a point where I am not adding value to the conversation through being unable to get you to understand valid points, and you are not adding value by failing to listen to the argument or accept it's validity.


Stores go bust for both reasons.


done. My recommendation. Don't start your own business. Or if you do, check back in a few years and see if anything that you discounted here makes sense then.

Walmart is still in business. People abuse their return policy all the time.

Circuit City went out of business. They had a terrible return policy.

Mom and Pop stores go out of business all the time, some have NO return policy.

You have no idea what you are talking about; please share with the rest of us what your credentials are on knowing great business practices? The fact of the matter is, it's the nature of the beast that causes you to go out of business. Sometimes it could be a bad return policy, either disgruntled customers or people taking advantage of you, sometimes it's something else. Nintendo posted their first loss ever in like 29 years. The movie industry keeps making more money every year regardless of the fact that you can walk into a movie, watch the whole thing, and complain to the manager you didn't like it and get money back for your ticket.

Every situation is different, and every business is different.

 

[Chaotic42]

...Wha? I love how people quantify how much money your fun is worth, and vice versa. It's completely subjective and makes no sense really. How much money did Civ 4 cost you? That's exactly how much of it's 'worth' you got out of it.

Well, I'm glad I got to bring you something that you love. Fine, if some magical person were to come down and say that they would remove Civilization 4 from existence and all memories of it unless I gave them $200, I would pay that fee.

Thus I would place a $200 value on the existence of Civ 4 and the ability to play it. Therefore, I feel that Civ 4 is worth $200.

 

[frowertr]

I didn't read the 7 pages of this thread so excuse me if my points have already be made...

I own a semi-large retail store in Panama City Beach, Florida. While my "official" position is no refunds as far as my employees are concerned, I rarely stick to that mantra. If there is ever an issue with a customer wanting a refund and I'm not there, I make sure my employees contact me first to let me know exactly what is going on. Nine times out of ten we can resolve it by exchanging the product out for another. It is very rare that I ever NEED to issue to a refund as most customers are very willing to take another product it its place. Everyone goes away happy with this scenario. I didn't have to give any money back and the customer still got something they paid for and are happy with it. If for some reason I have a customer come back and demand a refund because a product is defective or doesn't meet their expection and they aren't willing to take an exchange, I will proceed with the refund. I learned a long time ago that happy customers equal repeat customers. Even if the customer may be in the wrong, I'd like to think that by extending trust to them in believing their reasoning for returing a product, they will extend their loyalty to me by shopping with me again in the future. There are no guarantees of future purchases with this line of thinking, but you can be sure that if you don't give the refund you will NEVER see their cash again. Being a mom an pop store I need repeat business.

Unfortunately with software, there isn't an easy fix to someone wanting a refund. You can't just exchange it for another product. Secondly, once a game is beaten the majority of them (I would venture) will typically have very little replay value. So a software company knows if they issue a refund for a game that was bought a week, month, or year ago then it probably wasn't going to be ever played again and the customer is simply "done" with it and now wants a refund just "because".

It's a hard balance to strike with the business model of a software company. You want to make sure your customers are happy but you also need to make sure you are profitable. I personally believe there should be some kind of return system built in. I honestly believe if I am not happy with a product (through no fault of my own and I am not using deception to trick the retailer) I deserve to get my money back. But there has to be restrictions built it so that it isn't abused and that is what causes the problems.

Google and Amazon allow you to get your money back on Kindle and Market purchases within a set amount of time. I think it is 15 minutes on the Android Market place. I am not sure of the length of time Amazon allows. Perhaps this could be something the software companies could use. If you aren't happy with your gaming expierence within 2 hours of gameplay, we will refund you money and render your title "locked" so that you will no longer be able to play it.

That doesn't sound like rocket science to me. I'd be much more willing to shell out $60 (when the hell did all new titles start selling for $60 btw??) for Diablo 3 if I knew that Blizzard had an "Enjoyment Guarantee" and would refund my money after x amount of minutes or hours of gameplay if I wasn't happy.

Anyway, that is my .02¢ from a retailers point of view. I have been in the business long enough to know that keeping customers happy should be the goal. I fear a lot of companies have lost sight of this and now simply pump subpar products out to the market place as fast as possible just to make a buck!

 

[thespyder]

This analogy makes no sense. You play video games because its the most economical?
Using this line of thought, everyone here would just end up with closets full of board games.

I don't play video games because it is the most economical. I play them because I enjoy games. I don't COMPLAIN about the cost because it is the most economical.

And your supposition is flawed. I don't breath air because it tastes so sweet, yet I still breath air. You are drawing a spurious correlation to make your rediculous point.

Walmart is still in business. People abuse their return policy all the time.

Circuit City went out of business. They had a terrible return policy.

Mom and Pop stores go out of business all the time, some have NO return policy.

You have no idea what you are talking about; please share with the rest of us what your credentials are on knowing great business practices? The fact of the matter is, it's the nature of the beast that causes you to go out of business. Sometimes it could be a bad return policy, either disgruntled customers or people taking advantage of you, sometimes it's something else. Nintendo posted their first loss ever in like 29 years. The movie industry keeps making more money every year regardless of the fact that you can walk into a movie, watch the whole thing, and complain to the manager you didn't like it and get money back for your ticket.

Every situation is different, and every business is different.

Your supposition that just because one instance doesn't fall under a given paradigm, that all circumstances don't fall under that paradigm, or that it disproves it. This is absolutely not right. To follow that logic, Obama couldn't be President of the united states. After all, other African Americans have been unable to get elected, therefore, none could be.

I have first hand knowledge of several business that went under because of a combination of abuse of return policy and of fraud and theft. Now, granted, one company following that trend, doesn't equally mean that all will, but it does mean that some do. Which was my point.

 

[Veliko]

Your supposition that just because one instance doesn't fall under a given paradigm, that all circumstances don't fall under that paradigm, or that it disproves it. This is absolutely not right. To follow that logic, Obama couldn't be President of the united states. After all, other African Americans have been unable to get elected, therefore, none could be.

I have first hand knowledge of several business that went under because of a combination of abuse of return policy and of fraud and theft. Now, granted, one company following that trend, doesn't equally mean that all will, but it does mean that some do. Which was my point.

You are going to have to expand on this first-hand knowledge of yours.

Ultimately your point seems to be that sometimes something will happen if some combination of some things take place. You are talking in such broad terms that it is meaningless.

 

[reallyscrued]

I didn't read the 7 pages of this thread so excuse me if my points have already be made...

I own a semi-large retail store in Panama City Beach, Florida. While my "official" position is no refunds as far as my employees are concerned, I rarely stick to that mantra. If there is ever an issue with a customer wanting a refund and I'm not there, I make sure my employees contact me first to let me know exactly what is going on. Nine times out of ten we can resolve it be exchanging the product out for another. It is very rare that I ever NEED to issue to a refund as most customers are very willing to take another product it its place. Everyone goes away happy with this scenario. I didn't have to give any money back and the customer still got something they paid for. If for some reason I have a customer come back and demand a refund because a product is defective or doesn't meet their expection and they aren't willing to take an exchange, I will proceed with the refund. I learned a long time ago that happy customers equal repeat customers. Even if the customer may be in the wrong, I'd like to think that by extending trust to them in believing their reasoning for returing a product, they will extend their loyalty to me by shopping with me again in the future. There are no guarantees of future purchases with this line of thinking, but you can be sure that if you don't give the refund you will NEVER see their cash again. Being a mom an pop store I need repeat business.

Unfortunately with software, there isn't an easy fix to someone wanting a refund. You can't just exchange it for another product. Secondly, once a game is beaten the game (the majority I would venture) will typically have very little replay value. So a software company knows if they issue a refund for a game that was bought a week, month, or year ago then it probably wasn't going to be ever played again and the customer is simply "done" with it and now wants a refund just "because".

It's a hard balance to strike with business model of software companies. You want to make sure your customers are happy but you also need to make sure you are profitable. I personally believe there should be some kind of return system built in. I honestly believe if I am not happy with a product (through no fault of my own and I am not using deception to trick the retailer) I deserve to get my money back. But there has to be restrictions built it so that it isn't abused and that is what causes the problems.

Google and Amazon allow you to get your money back on Kindle and Market purchases within a set about of time. I think it is 15 mintues on the Android Market place. I am not sure of the length of time Amazon allows. Perhaps this could be something the software companies could use. If you aren't happy with your gaming expierence within 2 hours of gameplay, we will refund you money and render your title "locked" so that you will no longer be able to play it.

That doesn't sound like rocket science to me. I'd be much more willing to shell out $60 (when the hell did all new titles start selling for $60 btw??) for Diablo 3 if I knew that Blizzard had an "Enjoyment Guarantee" and would refund my money after x amount of minutes or hours of gameplay if I wasn't happy.

Anyway, that is my .02¢ from a retailers point of view. I have been in the business long enough to know that keeping customers happy should be the goal. I fear a lot of companies have lost sight of this and now simply pump subpar products out to the market place as fast as possible just to make a buck!

Thank you for being an understanding businessman and for sharing your point of view with us. I hope you are very successful with your endeavors. I had a similar idea and I think it would be a great way to run a software business where both the consumer, retailer, and the developer wins.

I hope the industry adopts such an idea.

 

[reallyscrued]

I don't play video games because it is the most economical. I play them because I enjoy games. I don't COMPLAIN about the cost because it is the most economical.

And your supposition is flawed. I don't breath air because it tastes so sweet, yet I still breath air. You are drawing a spurious correlation to make your rediculous point.


Your supposition that just because one instance doesn't fall under a given paradigm, that all circumstances don't fall under that paradigm, or that it disproves it. This is absolutely not right. To follow that logic, Obama couldn't be President of the united states. After all, other African Americans have been unable to get elected, therefore, none could be.

I have first hand knowledge of several business that went under because of a combination of abuse of return policy and of fraud and theft. Now, granted, one company following that trend, doesn't equally mean that all will, but it does mean that some do. Which was my point.

How's this for a supposition:

You're an idiot.

 

[reallyscrued]

Video game compatibility rates are significantly higher than Ebooks.

Manufacturing costs of video games are significantly higher than for books in general.

Profit margins for video games are significantly higher than for books (in general).

Should I continue? Humans and Whales are both mammals, but you won't see me selling a three piece suit to a whale.

Hm, so what kind of media would you compare to video games?

 

[thespyder]

How's this for a supposition:

You're an idiot.

I'd say you are entitled to your opinion. But would question the strength of your argument if you have to resort to insults to make your point.

I would also caution you about the TOS of this site.