The implied warranty of merchantability does not mean "you get to try it scot-free for a few days before you pay for it and give it back if you don't like it". It means that written warranty or not, products not sold "as-is" are automatically supposed to do their job. If you buy a steak knife it should be able to cut steak. If you buy a pen you can write with it.
It doesn't say that you get to take the steak knife home for a few days before you pay for it, and take it back if it turns out you can't cut tin cans with it. It doesn't say that you should get to write fifty pages' worth with your new pen and then decide if you want to pay for it.
But I guess that might be opaque to a silly goose who goes around calling people he disagrees with "dumbass".
I, er. I'm not sure where I said anything about "if you don't like it." My post is about consumer protections for fraudulent advertising or faulty product. If you can locate where I say anything about that (I am not loklar) then we can continue this discussion. Otherwise I have nothing to say to you except to point out that if the knife was advertised as "sharp enough to cut cans" and is not, in fact, sharp enough to cut cans, "you have a strong case for a refund instead of an exchange. If your consent was obtained by fraud, the law allows you to rescind (cancel) the purchase if you act promptly and in good faith."
I mean I'm just trying to figure out what your fundamental position is, Loklar.
Do you feel that consumers should not have any rights?
Do you feel that it is impossible to infringe on a consumer's rights?
Do you feel that false advertisement is not an infringement on a consumer's right?
Do you feel that (if you agree a consumer actually has rights) that a consumer doesn't have a right to escalate the issue so that his rights are protected?
One of the above?
Some of the above?
All of the above?
What are you trying to assert here?
It's not like people are beating down the average consumer's door to . And the fact is, companies have a lot more money and power than an average, individual purchaser. So, yes, the law should absolutely strongly regulate relationships between businesses and individual purchasers. It is the ONLY way to assure that consumer rights are not trampled on. It's all fine and good to stick your fingers in your ears, sing "lah-dee-dah," and just hope and pray that businesses won't ever do anything that either intentially or accidentally screws over the individual consumer, but what happens when they do?
Do you really feel the individual consumer is so unimportant that he or she doesn't have a right to, er, have rights? That's what is sounds like to me here.
If it's a case of false advertising, get a lawyer. We already have laws against false advertising.
That's what we're talking about isn't it? You bought something that promised to have a certain size of graphics, they were different. Because of this you can't use the product. Right?
Before you start calling people "dumbass", you might want to consider that computer software falls into a separate legal category from most consumer goods. The First Sale doctrine doesn't apply, for starters.
Explain to me again why I shouldn't be able to return a game to Steam within a 48-hour or 96-hour window, provided I haven't played said game for more than X hours? I mean, other than that the publishers would never allow Steam to issue such a refund because they're used to being able to sell garbage and call all sales final.
Such a system would be incredibly easy to abuse and would provide a marginal at best benefit to most consumers. It would only really benefit scammers, uninformed consumers, and the types of irrational customers that are the bane of every retailer ever.
If by "uninformed consumers" you mean "consumers who were misinformed by the publishers," sure.
EDIT: Time limited trial, remember. I'm not saying you should be able to pour 18 hours into it over two days then return it. But again, on Steam at least, there's at least some way to tell how much the customer even played it before realizing it was fucked.
I certainly wouldn't mind Steam offering "store credit" in exchange for taking a game off of your account as long as you had played that game for less than an hour. I'd say that if you can play a game for more than an hour, you really can't claim that it's seriously defective.
And yeah, call me insensitive, but having a slightly less than perfect HUD falls way short of any common sense definition of "fucked". Legally speaking, I mean. :P
However, allowing every customer to play one AAA game per month for 18+ hours for free? That'd be a clusterfuck to keep track of since everyone and their dog would abuse the fuck out of it.
The implied warranty of merchantability does not mean "you get to try it scot-free for a few days before you pay for it and give it back if you don't like it". It means that written warranty or not, products not sold "as-is" are automatically supposed to do their job. If you buy a steak knife it should be able to cut steak. If you buy a pen you can write with it.
It doesn't say that you get to take the steak knife home for a few days before you pay for it, and take it back if it turns out you can't cut tin cans with it. It doesn't say that you should get to write fifty pages' worth with your new pen and then decide if you want to pay for it.
But I guess that might be opaque to a silly goose who goes around calling people he disagrees with "dumbass".
Except that if you buy a steak knife and it doesn't cut STEAKS, then shouldn't you be allowed to return it?
This is analogous to the situation I am presenting. Not your "steak knife can't cut tin cans" scenario.
Read the OP. 2k Games very explicitly stated that the HUD would "appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at." That is a direct quote from the company. It doesn't do that. And it's not just my system, it has been proven now beyond a shadow of doubt that it is the fault of the game's coding. In fact, I have a private message from the main PR representative/community manager of 2k Games from yesterday admitting that the issue exists.
So this is very much an issue of a company selling a steak knife that doesn't cut steak.
No, I know that these consumer protections probably don't apply to Steam (I'm not sure how they wouldn't apply to Best Buy in California though; is software really that special a product that it is exempted from these things?) but the post I was responding to was basically implying that no consumer protections exist at all, which is pretty fucking dumb.
Since the OP is talking about a game which advertised proper scaling on 16:10 monitors (including HUD), but doesn't, your post is pretty fucking irrelevant, huh?
Do try to follow. Somebody posted a link to a California law setting out the implied warranty of merchantability to rebut somebody else's argument that you can't expect to take everything and buy later. It's irrelevant to the OP's post. If the company ADVERTISED that its product does X and the product does not, in fact, do X, there is no "implied" anything to worry about, huh?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
If it's a case of false advertising, get a lawyer. We already have laws against false advertising.
That's what we're talking about isn't it? You bought something that promised to have a certain size of graphics, they were different. Because of this you can't use the product. Right?
I don't know if you know this, but lawyers are fairly substantially more expensive than videogames. Prohibitively so.
If it's a case of false advertising, get a lawyer. We already have laws against false advertising.
That's what we're talking about isn't it? You bought something that promised to have a certain size of graphics, they were different. Because of this you can't use the product. Right?
Yes. I had (perhaps unfairly) assumed you were being sarcastic.
So you agree that I do have a right to that type of recourse, yes?
Beyond that, though, why should that be my only means of redress? Why shouldn't consumer protections have more oversight so that a consumer isn't forced to enter into a legal situation to have a $50 product either function the way it should, or at least have the money refunded? People have suggested that allowing refunds opens this particular industry for abuse, but let's be pragmatic: Is a lawsuit any better? And are any of us still suffering under the delusion that piracy isn't totally rampant without people being able to return opened software?
Being able to download a cracked game is so trivial that (in the case of retail purchases, for instance) driving to the store, buying the game, driving home, ripping the disc (assuming you have the right tools to do so), driving back to the store, returning the game, driving home, and then waiting for a crack or whatever is actually much more of a hassle than just downloading it. I suggest that allowing refunds on opened games will have zero impact on piracy.
If it's a case of false advertising, get a lawyer. We already have laws against false advertising.
That's what we're talking about isn't it? You bought something that promised to have a certain size of graphics, they were different. Because of this you can't use the product. Right?
Yes. I had (perhaps unfairly) assumed you were being sarcastic.
So you agree that I do have a right to that type of recourse, yes?
Beyond that, though, why should that be my only means of redress? Why shouldn't consumer protections have more oversight so that a consumer isn't forced to enter into a legal situation to have a $50 product either function the way it should, or at least have the money refunded? People have suggested that allowing refunds opens this particular industry for abuse, but let's be pragmatic: Is a lawsuit any better? And are any of us still suffering under the delusion that piracy isn't totally rampant without people being able to return opened software?
Being able to download a cracked game is so trivial that (in the case of retail purchases, for instance) driving to the store, buying the game, driving home, ripping the disc (assuming you have the right tools to do so), driving back to the store, returning the game, driving home, and then waiting for a crack or whatever is actually much more of a hassle than just downloading it. I suggest that allowing refunds on opened games will have zero impact on piracy.
Well you have a legal course of action (which I'd suggest would be less-expensive than you think), or you could be a criminal. Do whatever you want, I'm not going to stop you.
Edit: Basically what you're arguing is that it's in Steams interest to make you happy. Well then, write Steam a letter.
If it's a case of false advertising, get a lawyer. We already have laws against false advertising.
That's what we're talking about isn't it? You bought something that promised to have a certain size of graphics, they were different. Because of this you can't use the product. Right?
Yes. I had (perhaps unfairly) assumed you were being sarcastic.
So you agree that I do have a right to that type of recourse, yes?
Beyond that, though, why should that be my only means of redress? Why shouldn't consumer protections have more oversight so that a consumer isn't forced to enter into a legal situation to have a $50 product either function the way it should, or at least have the money refunded? People have suggested that allowing refunds opens this particular industry for abuse, but let's be pragmatic: Is a lawsuit any better? And are any of us still suffering under the delusion that piracy isn't totally rampant without people being able to return opened software?
Being able to download a cracked game is so trivial that (in the case of retail purchases, for instance) driving to the store, buying the game, driving home, ripping the disc (assuming you have the right tools to do so), driving back to the store, returning the game, driving home, and then waiting for a crack or whatever is actually much more of a hassle than just downloading it. I suggest that allowing refunds on opened games will have zero impact on piracy.
It's not piracy per se that's the issue, it's "people buying the game, finishing it, then returning it" that drives these policies in relation to games.
Before you start calling people "dumbass", you might want to consider that computer software falls into a separate legal category from most consumer goods. The First Sale doctrine doesn't apply, for starters.
That is not at all a clear cut issue. There was a federal court ruling not too long ago (2009, maybe 2008) that upheld the doctrine of first sale for software. I think the publisher involved was AutoDesk. Previous to that there have been federal court decisions going both ways.
Since the OP is talking about a game which advertised proper scaling on 16:10 monitors (including HUD), but doesn't, your post is pretty fucking irrelevant, huh?
Do try to follow. Somebody posted a link to a California law setting out the implied warranty of merchantability to rebut somebody else's argument that you can't expect to take everything and buy later. It's irrelevant to the OP's post. If the company ADVERTISED that its product does X and the product does not, in fact, do X, there is no "implied" anything to worry about, huh?
There seems to be some is-ought confusion here. I know that California law likely does not apply here; I just happen to think that California law is fairly reasonable and would be fair if it were applied here. I was responding to a poster who was hostile towards the notion that any consumer anywhere should ever be able to rescind charges, calling it "theft." That's bullshit, and I called him on it.
Lawyers are the solution. Internet + international law is very complicated.
Yes, because that's reasonable over a $50 game.
Definitely preferable to adequate consumer protection for digital media purchase.
You're a genius.
1) Adequate consumer protection and lawyers are not mutually exclusive.
2) If the OP is not the only one with this issue, and it is unlikely that s/he is, there are things like class-action lawsuits. You don't pay your lawyer ahead of time for those.
But really, complaining to the company, your state's consumer protection office, and perhaps small-claims courts are all options in the meantime for dealing with the immediate problem.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
If it's a case of false advertising, get a lawyer. We already have laws against false advertising.
That's what we're talking about isn't it? You bought something that promised to have a certain size of graphics, they were different. Because of this you can't use the product. Right?
Yes. I had (perhaps unfairly) assumed you were being sarcastic.
So you agree that I do have a right to that type of recourse, yes?
Beyond that, though, why should that be my only means of redress? Why shouldn't consumer protections have more oversight so that a consumer isn't forced to enter into a legal situation to have a $50 product either function the way it should, or at least have the money refunded? People have suggested that allowing refunds opens this particular industry for abuse, but let's be pragmatic: Is a lawsuit any better? And are any of us still suffering under the delusion that piracy isn't totally rampant without people being able to return opened software?
Being able to download a cracked game is so trivial that (in the case of retail purchases, for instance) driving to the store, buying the game, driving home, ripping the disc (assuming you have the right tools to do so), driving back to the store, returning the game, driving home, and then waiting for a crack or whatever is actually much more of a hassle than just downloading it. I suggest that allowing refunds on opened games will have zero impact on piracy.
Well you have a legal course of action (which I'd suggest would be less-expensive than you think), or you could be a criminal. Do whatever you want, I'm not going to stop you.
The bare minimum legal action I can think of in this situation is small claims court, which would require him to take a day off of work (at least) and thus be considerably more expensive than simply giving up. If you are seriously espousing a legal course of action -- other than a credit card chargeback -- which can get a refund in this situation without costing Drez much money, perhaps you should deign to explain it to the rest of us, rather than spewing one-sentence trollish posts.
Lawyers are the solution. Internet + international law is very complicated.
Yes, because that's reasonable over a $50 game.
Definitely preferable to adequate consumer protection for digital media purchase.
You're a genius.
1) Adequate consumer protection and lawyers are not mutually exclusive.
2) If the OP is not the only one with this issue, and it is unlikely that s/he is, there are things like class-action lawsuits. You don't pay your lawyer ahead of time for those.
But really, complaining to the company, your state's consumer protection office, and perhaps small-claims courts are all options in the meantime for dealing with the immediate problem.
A class action suit will probably get OP a $2 gift certificate towards his next purchase, not a refund.
A class action suit will probably get OP a $2 gift certificate towards his next purchase, not a refund.
If the noble arbiters of justice in the US courts determine that Drez is owed $2 rather than $50, who are we to spout disloyal nonsense like "he was stiffed 48 bucks."
If it's a case of false advertising, get a lawyer. We already have laws against false advertising.
That's what we're talking about isn't it? You bought something that promised to have a certain size of graphics, they were different. Because of this you can't use the product. Right?
Yes. I had (perhaps unfairly) assumed you were being sarcastic.
So you agree that I do have a right to that type of recourse, yes?
Beyond that, though, why should that be my only means of redress? Why shouldn't consumer protections have more oversight so that a consumer isn't forced to enter into a legal situation to have a $50 product either function the way it should, or at least have the money refunded? People have suggested that allowing refunds opens this particular industry for abuse, but let's be pragmatic: Is a lawsuit any better? And are any of us still suffering under the delusion that piracy isn't totally rampant without people being able to return opened software?
Being able to download a cracked game is so trivial that (in the case of retail purchases, for instance) driving to the store, buying the game, driving home, ripping the disc (assuming you have the right tools to do so), driving back to the store, returning the game, driving home, and then waiting for a crack or whatever is actually much more of a hassle than just downloading it. I suggest that allowing refunds on opened games will have zero impact on piracy.
Well you have a legal course of action (which I'd suggest would be less-expensive than you think), or you could be a criminal. Do whatever you want, I'm not going to stop you.
What the fuck are you talking about? Be a criminal? What the fuck are you talking about?
For the record, I bought BioShock 2 almost four months ago. I've received nearly four months of platitudes from their PR firm that the issue was going to be fixed. The patch notes for this latest patch included "fixed further issues related to HUD stretching." The patch came out and it wasn't fixed. Last night, the head PR agent for 2k Games (their community manager that communicates all technical issues consumers have with the game to the development team) admitted that this issue - the issue that she said was being worked on for months as a part of their bigger patch - wasn't even elevated to the developers.
Anyway, my point is, assuming you were talking about the chargeback stuff, that ship sailed four months ago.
Edit: Basically what you're arguing is that it's in Steams interest to make you happy. Well then, write Steam a letter.
No, what I'm arguing is that 2k Games is/should be legally obligated not to falsely advertise and that the consumer should not have to pull a lawyer out of their ass to have his rights protected. There should be easier forms of recourse for the consumer to pursue and that allowing refunds is one such possibility. It's not the only possibility, but "lawsuit" definitely shouldn't be the only possibility either.
The implied warranty of merchantability does not mean "you get to try it scot-free for a few days before you pay for it and give it back if you don't like it". It means that written warranty or not, products not sold "as-is" are automatically supposed to do their job. If you buy a steak knife it should be able to cut steak. If you buy a pen you can write with it.
It doesn't say that you get to take the steak knife home for a few days before you pay for it, and take it back if it turns out you can't cut tin cans with it. It doesn't say that you should get to write fifty pages' worth with your new pen and then decide if you want to pay for it.
But I guess that might be opaque to a silly goose who goes around calling people he disagrees with "dumbass".
Except that if you buy a steak knife and it doesn't cut STEAKS, then shouldn't you be allowed to return it?
This is analogous to the situation I am presenting. Not your "steak knife can't cut tin cans" scenario.
Read the OP. 2k Games very explicitly stated that the HUD would "appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at." That is a direct quote from the company. It doesn't do that. And it's not just my system, it has been proven now beyond a shadow of doubt that it is the fault of the game's coding. In fact, I have a private message from the main PR representative/community manager of 2k Games from yesterday admitting that the issue exists.
So this is very much an issue of a company selling a steak knife that doesn't cut steak.
No, no it's not.
You're taking an incredibly minor aspect of a game and blowing it way the fuck out of proportion.
Do you have a right to be upset that a game isn't perfect, or doesn't live up to every single pre-launch promise made by a developer or publisher? Sure.
Is that enough of a reason to demand a full refund for a game? No, not really.
You yourself said that other than the HUD, the graphics are fine on your monitor. The game loads, runs, and functions as well as any customer could reasonably expect.
You yourself admit that you're an outlier. You cannot expect any business to structure their return and refund policy around outliers.
2k should certainly work towards patching in a solution, as they did for the FOV complaints some users had with the PC version of BioShock 1, or the weapons text display glitch in the PC version of Borderlands. I'm surprised there isn't a user-made fix or mod out there already for this issue.
I think the real issue here is that the OP thinks Steam is such a good service that the future enjoyment he gets from it will outweigh the 50 loss he's going to accept now.
If Steam is so terrible, don't use the service. I'm sorry about your 50 dollars.
A class action suit will probably get OP a $2 gift certificate towards his next purchase, not a refund.
If the noble arbiters of justice in the US courts determine that Drez is owed $2 rather than $50, who are we to spout disloyal nonsense like "he was stiffed 48 bucks."
Then as a class member (assuming you're not a representative of the class) you object to the settlement. Then nobody (particularly the lawyers) get a dime until either you're happy or the judge decides you are completely full of poo, and in the meantime you've dragged it out which tends to encourage people to shape up.
Of course these suits take forever and in the OP's shoes, I'd do the complaint + small claims route.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Lawyers are the solution. Internet + international law is very complicated.
Yes, because that's reasonable over a $50 game.
Definitely preferable to adequate consumer protection for digital media purchase.
You're a genius.
1) Adequate consumer protection and lawyers are not mutually exclusive.
2) If the OP is not the only one with this issue, and it is unlikely that s/he is, there are things like class-action lawsuits. You don't pay your lawyer ahead of time for those.
But really, complaining to the company, your state's consumer protection office, and perhaps small-claims courts are all options in the meantime for dealing with the immediate problem.
But isn't that silly? Why does the solution need to be so extreme? I consider having to resort to a lawsuit - even small claims - to be rather extreme.
Why not increase oversight over consumer-business relations both for retail and digital purchases?
And why not work toward finding a way to eliminate the nebulous loopholes that allow a company that is international and "internet based" to get away with policies such as Valve has?
Buyer vs. Seller is an age-old problem that requires compromise of rights. I do not feel that the buyer should hold all the power but right now the sellers do. Valve has total power over its consumer. If it deems you've ever cheated in a multiplayer game it can VAC ban you and you have absolutely no recourse. They won't even converse with you about it. Apparently they can do something similar for your legitimately-purchased game library if they feel you've done something shady (which is something I am just finding ot about in this thread). And maybe someone of legal authority would deem Steam in the right for that. I don't know. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to enact policies that protect their business. But there should be some oversight so the consumer has an easier way to assert his rights than just "sue" which is not a trivial process, even if it's entirely free.
You're taking an incredibly minor aspect of a game and blowing it way the fuck out of proportion.
I totally agree, which is why I used "steak knife that doesn't cut tin cans" as my analogy rather than "steak knife that doesn't cut steak." In this case Drez seems to have been explicitly told, at the time of his irrevocable decision to purchase, that this steak knife can cut cans.
But he didn't buy a steak knife, he bought software, and because of the peculiar nature of the transaction, when he attempted to assert his rights as a consumer he found that his entire cutlery set had been teleported back to the manufacturer.
You're taking an incredibly minor aspect of a game and blowing it way the fuck out of proportion.
I totally agree, which is why I used "steak knife that doesn't cut tin cans" as my analogy rather than "steak knife that doesn't cut steak." In this case Drez seems to have been explicitly told, at the time of his irrevocable decision to purchase, that this steak knife can cut cans.
But he didn't buy a steak knife, he bought software, and because of the peculiar nature of the transaction, when he attempted to assert his rights as a consumer he found that his entire cutlery set had been teleported back to the manufacturer.
Uh, no. Unless I mis-read the OP, Steam and 2k have done nothing to restrict Drez's access to BioShock 2, or his Steam library.
The implied warranty of merchantability does not mean "you get to try it scot-free for a few days before you pay for it and give it back if you don't like it". It means that written warranty or not, products not sold "as-is" are automatically supposed to do their job. If you buy a steak knife it should be able to cut steak. If you buy a pen you can write with it.
It doesn't say that you get to take the steak knife home for a few days before you pay for it, and take it back if it turns out you can't cut tin cans with it. It doesn't say that you should get to write fifty pages' worth with your new pen and then decide if you want to pay for it.
But I guess that might be opaque to a silly goose who goes around calling people he disagrees with "dumbass".
Except that if you buy a steak knife and it doesn't cut STEAKS, then shouldn't you be allowed to return it?
This is analogous to the situation I am presenting. Not your "steak knife can't cut tin cans" scenario.
Read the OP. 2k Games very explicitly stated that the HUD would "appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at." That is a direct quote from the company. It doesn't do that. And it's not just my system, it has been proven now beyond a shadow of doubt that it is the fault of the game's coding. In fact, I have a private message from the main PR representative/community manager of 2k Games from yesterday admitting that the issue exists.
So this is very much an issue of a company selling a steak knife that doesn't cut steak.
No, no it's not.
You're taking an incredibly minor aspect of a game and blowing it way the fuck out of proportion.
Yes, yes it is.
Just because a steak knife only has one feature (it cuts steak) doesn't mean that every single advertised aspect of a more complicated product is as important to the overall product. If I buy a steak knife that was advertised "Mahogany handle! Stainless steel blade! Cuts steaks!" and the handle was actually made of oak instead of mahogany, it's as much of an issue as a steak knife that doesn't cut steak.
What you're basically saying here is that the complexity of a product means it is okay for any given number of advertised features to be broken because the overall or primary utility of the product isn't necessarily reduced, or because the ratio of working features is so high.
Do you have a right to be upset that a game isn't perfect, or doesn't live up to every single pre-launch promise made by a developer or publisher? Sure.
Is that enough of a reason to demand a full refund for a game? No, not really.
Terrible :v:
Not only should I be legally entitled to a full refund, but their business should be heavily censured for having engaged in explicitly false advertisement.
The game loads, runs, and functions as well as any customer could reasonably expect.
I expect the game to load, run, and function with correct aspect scaling proportions. I would be willing to forgive a little HUD stretching, though, if the company didn't explicitly advertise that there is no HUD stretching in the game before it came out.
You yourself admit that you're an outlier. You cannot expect any business to structure their return and refund policy around outliers.
I'm not an outlier. Every single consumer was falsely advertised to. That includes all the people who didn't notice the HUD stretch. It even includes the people that don't play the game in a 16:10 resolution and would never actually encounter the issue. All of those people have had their consumer rights infringed upon as much as I have. The fact that the issue actually bothers me personally is, in fact, irrelevant.
2k should certainly work towards patching in a solution, as they did for the FOV complaints some users had with the PC version of BioShock 1, or the weapons text display glitch in the PC version of Borderlands. I'm surprised there isn't a user-made fix or mod out there already for this issue.
Please see my last post or so. They've been promising a patch to fix this for nearly four months now. I just found out yesterday that the issue was never properly elevated to the development team.
I think I've logged 1.5 hours total "play" time. However, I would answer "10 minutes or so." That's how long it took me to recognize the issue in the first place. All other time I've spent in the game were to take screenshots to provide to the 2k Games community manager, and for me to test out different resolutions and verify other bugs.
And nope, I'm not exaggerating. 2 hours in four months. I've spent at least 50 hours on the 2k Games forum though fucking talking about this goddamned issue.
My post is about consumer protections for fraudulent advertising or faulty product.
Right. The 'implied warranty of merchantability' in the link is a tangent to that. 'Implied' means that if I sell you a chair, even if I don't say a thing about its performance and don't have a warranty, it is implied that the product is fit for its intended use. You can sit on the chair. If it breaks I can't say "Hey, I never told you it was sit-worthy and I never wrote a warranty for it." The exception is if the product is sold "as is". (I'm not making anything out of the fact that this was California law because it's a legal concept that exists in some form pretty much everywhere.)
Here the OP is telling us that the game does what it's supposed to do - he can install and run it on the advertised platform - but that there were explicit representations about the resolution it could run at, and those representations turned out to be untrue. We're beyond the issue of "hey, you sold me a computer game that is not in fact a game capable of running on a computer", and into misrepresentation, defects in the product, violation of the warranty, etc.
I'm really not disagreeing that this was a dick move on the company's part, or that there should be strong consumer protections for this sort of thing.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
You're taking an incredibly minor aspect of a game and blowing it way the fuck out of proportion.
I totally agree, which is why I used "steak knife that doesn't cut tin cans" as my analogy rather than "steak knife that doesn't cut steak." In this case Drez seems to have been explicitly told, at the time of his irrevocable decision to purchase, that this steak knife can cut cans.
But he didn't buy a steak knife, he bought software, and because of the peculiar nature of the transaction, when he attempted to assert his rights as a consumer he found that his entire cutlery set had been teleported back to the manufacturer.
Uh, no. Unless I mis-read the OP, Steam and 2k have done nothing to restrict Drez's access to BioShock 2, or his Steam library.
Confirming that I still have access to BioShock 2 and my Steam library.
And okay I understand what you mean by "steak knife that doesn't cut tin cans" but it doesn't really make a difference. If the steak knife is advertised to cut tin cans, then if it doesn't, it doesn't really matter that its primary function is to cut steak. I would be entitled to a refund IF that were an advertised feature and it did not actually perform that function.
I mean, really, it's none of Steam's or 2k Games' business why I buy a particular game. What if the only reason I bought BioShock 2 was because I wanted to sit and stare at perfect HUD elements. It's crazy, sure, but as that was one of its advertised features, a person could conceivably purchase it for that reason alone.
It doesn't matter if the 99% of the game's other features works because it could be any single advertised feature that compels a person to buy the game.
If I sell you a used car and I tell you the AC works, and it absolutely does not work, I should be obligated to either refund you the money or fix your AC at my own cost. Shouldn't I? Economics of depreciation notwithstanding (which don't apply to digital goods anyway, not in the standard framework of depreciation), isn't that what a judge would most likely rule? Or would he say "oh, but does the car drive? Well FUCK YOU. So what if the AC doesn't work?"
See the thing here is, 2k Games hasn't made any effort to fix this issue either. Either a refund or a fix is fine, but either should be required. It doesn't matter if I'm an "outlier" by your definition or if the issue is "trivial" - the company has a responsibility to ensure the product they promise is the one I receive, because what I *bought* was the product they advertised to me. That's the whole foundation of consumer protection against false advertisement.
fakeedit:this is exactly what the word trivial is for.
Please elaborate.
In the games entire graphics system(menus/HUD/game graphics)-let alone the entire game, the complaint is that in one case a small part of the HUD is slightly ovoid instead of circular.
2 a : of little worth or importance <a trivial objection> <trivial problems>
Now look up the words "worth" and "importance" - both of which have personal, subjective value. My entire point is that while something may be trivial TO YOU, it doesn't mean it is objectively trivial. Thus, it seems "exactly what the word trivial is for" is what I implied in my first post - so other people can make inane comments to the objective value of something, an objective value that doesn't exist.
The issue, to me, is non-trivial. And the whole concept needs to be thrown out the window. People need to understand that while something may not be important to them, it doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else. There's no way to quantify objective value. Value is a wholly subjective concept.
Go before a judge then, they convert things to value all the time. The refund policy for the games makes sense, otherwise buy->beat->return would be stupidly prevalent. So if you think they falsely advertised thats your recourse, use it or don't.
My post is about consumer protections for fraudulent advertising or faulty product.
Right. The 'implied warranty of merchantability' in the link is a tangent to that. 'Implied' means that if I sell you a chair, even if I don't say a thing about its performance and don't have a warranty, it is implied that the product is fit for its intended use. You can sit on the chair. If it breaks I can't say "Hey, I never told you it was sit-worthy and I never wrote a warranty for it." The exception is if the product is sold "as is". (I'm not making anything out of the fact that this was California law because it's a legal concept that exists in some form pretty much everywhere.)
Here the OP is telling us that the game does what it's supposed to do - he can install and run it on the advertised platform - but that there were explicit representations about the resolution it could run at, and those representations turned out to be untrue. We're beyond the issue of "hey, you sold me a computer game that is not in fact a game capable of running on a computer", and into misrepresentation, defects in the product, violation of the warranty, etc.
I'm really not disagreeing that this was a dick move on the company's part, or that there should be strong consumer protections for this sort of thing.
Yeah, I'm fairly sure you and I never really disagreed in the first place. I think we just had very different interpretations of Squidget's post. You took Squidget at face value when he decried "free trial periods" while I interpreted that as a contention that consumer protections don't (or shouldn't) exist. Unless Squidget comes back, we'll never really know who was right
Just because a steak knife only has one feature (it cuts steak) doesn't mean that every single advertised aspect of a more complicated product is as important to the overall product. If I buy a steak knife that was advertised "Mahogany handle! Stainless steel blade! Cuts steaks!" and the handle was actually made of oak instead of mahogany, it's as much of an issue as a steak knife that doesn't cut steak.
What you're basically saying here is that the complexity of a product means it is okay for any given number of advertised features to be broken because the overall or primary utility of the product isn't necessarily reduced, or because the ratio of working features is so high.
I fully, absolutely disagree.
Then stop buying PC games. No, seriously. You are so far of an outlier that it's unreasonable for any developer, distributor or publisher to base their return policies on your perception of reasonable performance.
Edit: By your standards, every single PC game developer is guilty of false advertising and should be "heavily censured" and offer unrestricted refunds if they ever release a game that has any feature deemed by any player to be "broken". It's an impossible standard to expect from anyone, anywhere.
Not only should I be legally entitled to a full refund, but their business should be heavily censured for having engaged in explicitly false advertisement.
Really? You have a mental disorder that prevents you from being able to overlook an incredibly minor glitch that has no reasonable person would consider to be a game breaking issue.
The developers made one claim about said incredibly minor incidental feature before launch then, when they noticed the glitch that contradicted that claim, are making an effort to correct it.
Again, you are an outlier. You cannot expect actual real-world businesses to base their refund policies or their advertisements on outliers.
I'm not an outlier. Every single consumer was falsely advertised to. That includes all the people who didn't notice the HUD stretch. It even includes the people that don't play the game in a 16:10 resolution and would never actually encounter the issue. All of those people have had their consumer rights infringed upon as much as I have. The fact that the issue actually bothers me personally is, in fact, irrelevant.
No, you're an outlier because you claim to have a mental disorder (OCD) that makes what any reasonable person would consider a minor annoyance into a gamebreaking issue that supposedly prevents you from playing the game. You are drastically overestimating the negative impact of an incredibly minor glitch, and in turn drastically overestimating what an appropriate remedy should be.
Please see my last post or so. They've been promising a patch to fix this for nearly four months now. I just found out yesterday that the issue was never properly elevated to the development team.
And? Why should they be legally obligated to prioritize your personal issue?
I think I've logged 1.5 hours total "play" time. However, I would answer "10 minutes or so." That's how long it took me to recognize the issue in the first place. All other time I've spent in the game were to take screenshots to provide to the 2k Games community manager, and for me to test out different resolutions and verify other bugs.
And nope, I'm not exaggerating. 2 hours in four months. I've spent at least 50 hours on the 2k Games forum though fucking talking about this goddamned issue.
Really? 50 hours complaining about a slightly distorted HUD and you're not an outlier?
My post is about consumer protections for fraudulent advertising or faulty product.
Right. The 'implied warranty of merchantability' in the link is a tangent to that. 'Implied' means that if I sell you a chair, even if I don't say a thing about its performance and don't have a warranty, it is implied that the product is fit for its intended use. You can sit on the chair. If it breaks I can't say "Hey, I never told you it was sit-worthy and I never wrote a warranty for it." The exception is if the product is sold "as is". (I'm not making anything out of the fact that this was California law because it's a legal concept that exists in some form pretty much everywhere.)
Here the OP is telling us that the game does what it's supposed to do - he can install and run it on the advertised platform - but that there were explicit representations about the resolution it could run at, and those representations turned out to be untrue. We're beyond the issue of "hey, you sold me a computer game that is not in fact a game capable of running on a computer", and into misrepresentation, defects in the product, violation of the warranty, etc.
I'm really not disagreeing that this was a dick move on the company's part, or that there should be strong consumer protections for this sort of thing.
Okay, thanks, I'm glad we're on the same page at least insofar as this is concerned.
And I appreciate your suggestion about small claims court. I'm not really interested in that and to be honest I can deal with the HUD stretch - I'm just worried about the implications here. I've been trying to communicate the situation to the community manager there for four months. She told me that it was being worked on. It was in the patch notes. But it wasn't fixed and yesterday she tells me that she had misunderstood the problem all those months and that the issue was never actually competently described to the developers working on the patch.
Which is why I'm so frustrated. I never threatened them with any legal stuff. My ONLY recourse was to complain on the forum, and I've been doing that for four months with no success. And all the while I'm told by others that the issue is unimportant. It's maddening. My right to have a product as it was explicitly advertised to me is NOT unimportant and is NOT trivial.
I just wish that there were a way to ensure a consumer could file a grievance with some kind of independent party and that that grievance could actually be effective. All I really ever wanted was for the developers to take a look at this feature and hopefully fix it. But trying to even communicate the problem has been nearly impossible.
Similarly, (and to reopen this up to other businesses beyond software) I think businesses that reach a certain size should be legally required to have phone support. I absolutely loathe this "email only" kind of support shit. At least for billing issues. So many companies nowadays don't even have a billing support number. You know what sucks? Getting billed for something you already canceled, or getting billed double for something, and having to rely on email for a response. That just isn't right. More of a debatable issue, though, since it would require the company to actively spend resources on phone support.
You yourself admit that you're an outlier. You cannot expect any business to structure their return and refund policy around outliers.
Errr... I'm not sure why this is so.
I don't see how the industry would be dismantled if they had a policy along the lines of "when people complain because a feature we promised would be in the game isn't in the game, we'll refund them".
I feel like I would have been more on the company's side if they hadn't explicitly stated the game would work on widescreen resolutions. By making it explicit rather than assumed they made it a 'feature', regardless of how minute it is. When a feature is lacking, I perceive it differently than I would a bug in the game.
You yourself admit that you're an outlier. You cannot expect any business to structure their return and refund policy around outliers.
Errr... I'm not sure why this is so.
I don't see how the industry would be dismantled if they had a policy along the lines of "when people complain because a feature we promised would be in the game isn't in the game, we'll refund them".
I feel like I would have been more on the company's side if they hadn't explicitly stated the game would work on widescreen resolutions. By making it explicit rather than assumed they made it a 'feature', regardless of how minute it is. When a feature is lacking, I perceive it differently than I would a bug in the game.
It does work, OP just has OCD which prevents him from overlooking a minor bug. They claimed it would be "indenticle" which was an actually impossible claim to satisfy.
edit: Hahah, I let myself get trolled too easily. Lawndart, you really aren't worth responding to anymore. It's fine to have a differing opinion, I can respect that, but your position is so bizarre that the only way this can end is a verbal shouting match.
Anyway, my point is very simple. This is false advertisement. It's very clearly so. Yes, bugs exist in games. I can accept them. However, it's very rare that a company will advertise their product as having Feature X and then it doesn't have Feature X. THAT is false advertisement. It's not the same as if a game is just shitty. This is a matter of a feature being advertised and the game not having that feature. Regardless of how tiny or non-integral that feature may be, it's false advertising.
If you disagree on that front, I have no desire to discuss anything with you, because your position is not sane.
You yourself admit that you're an outlier. You cannot expect any business to structure their return and refund policy around outliers.
Errr... I'm not sure why this is so.
I don't see how the industry would be dismantled if they had a policy along the lines of "when people complain because a feature we promised would be in the game isn't in the game, we'll refund them".
I feel like I would have been more on the company's side if they hadn't explicitly stated the game would work on widescreen resolutions. By making it explicit rather than assumed they made it a 'feature', regardless of how minute it is. When a feature is lacking, I perceive it differently than I would a bug in the game.
It does work, OP just has OCD which prevents him from overlooking a minor bug. They claimed it would be "indenticle" which was an actually impossible claim to satisfy.
Actually, I can overlook the bug. It does bother more more because of the OCD, yes, but I can deal with it.
And I just figured out today a way I can trick my computer into playing the game with the HUD non-stretched, but only in 16:9 mode. I have to switch my desktop to 16:9 before playing the game and I have to fiddle with a few video card options.
But that's really not the issue. The issue is that the game was explicitly advertised to have a similarly-appearing HUD in 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, and 16:10, and it does not, a fact that 2k Games has even admitted to at this point. I shouldn't be forced to play the game in 16:9 to play properly and I shouldn't be forced to play the game in 16:10 with improper stretch when not having to do so was an advertised feature of the game.
You yourself admit that you're an outlier. You cannot expect any business to structure their return and refund policy around outliers.
Errr... I'm not sure why this is so.
I don't see how the industry would be dismantled if they had a policy along the lines of "when people complain because a feature we promised would be in the game isn't in the game, we'll refund them".
I feel like I would have been more on the company's side if they hadn't explicitly stated the game would work on widescreen resolutions. By making it explicit rather than assumed they made it a 'feature', regardless of how minute it is. When a feature is lacking, I perceive it differently than I would a bug in the game.
It does work, OP just has OCD which prevents him from overlooking a minor bug. They claimed it would be "indenticle" which was an actually impossible claim to satisfy.
So, does it matter what a company advertises before release?
-Should they only be held to meeting the 'major' features?
-Should they be held to meeting any features?
-Does something become a feature when they explicitly state it'll be in the game?
-Does whether something is explicitly advertised not matter at all and all that matters is how serious the bug is?
Fortunately, as we can see here, they'll always have apologists to defend them.
I prefer to imagine that Squidget and posters like him are being paid for their services, even though that probably isn't the case. For some reason, I find that notion less disturbing than the alternative.
Is it really such an out-there position to suggest that 96-hour demos for all digital products shouldn't be mandated by law? I feel like I've stepped into the twilight zone. Who exactly is supposed to be paying me?
I'm a gamer, a game developer, and a PA fan. I love PC games and I wish it were commercially viable for me to make them. It's not, and the rampant entitlement issues in this thread and others make up a lot of the reasons why it's not. Getting investors or publishers for a PC title is nigh-on impossible at this point because the open platform is so exploitable, and as much as I'd love to be able to return my PC games, that kind of feature would only make it even worse on the all-important development side.
It bothers me to hear people threatening legal action against developers for something that developers can't prevent, and it bothers me to hear PC gamers calling out developers for being greedy money-grubbing bastards when they should be working together trying to find ways to improve the platform for everyone.
Incidentally, if you want Valve to change their policies you should email them. More than any company I know, they build their features based on user feedback first. If a lot of people are asking for a thing, you're that much more likely to get it.
Posts
I, er. I'm not sure where I said anything about "if you don't like it." My post is about consumer protections for fraudulent advertising or faulty product. If you can locate where I say anything about that (I am not loklar) then we can continue this discussion. Otherwise I have nothing to say to you except to point out that if the knife was advertised as "sharp enough to cut cans" and is not, in fact, sharp enough to cut cans, "you have a strong case for a refund instead of an exchange. If your consent was obtained by fraud, the law allows you to rescind (cancel) the purchase if you act promptly and in good faith."
Do you feel that consumers should not have any rights?
Do you feel that it is impossible to infringe on a consumer's rights?
Do you feel that false advertisement is not an infringement on a consumer's right?
Do you feel that (if you agree a consumer actually has rights) that a consumer doesn't have a right to escalate the issue so that his rights are protected?
One of the above?
Some of the above?
All of the above?
What are you trying to assert here?
It's not like people are beating down the average consumer's door to . And the fact is, companies have a lot more money and power than an average, individual purchaser. So, yes, the law should absolutely strongly regulate relationships between businesses and individual purchasers. It is the ONLY way to assure that consumer rights are not trampled on. It's all fine and good to stick your fingers in your ears, sing "lah-dee-dah," and just hope and pray that businesses won't ever do anything that either intentially or accidentally screws over the individual consumer, but what happens when they do?
Do you really feel the individual consumer is so unimportant that he or she doesn't have a right to, er, have rights? That's what is sounds like to me here.
That's what we're talking about isn't it? You bought something that promised to have a certain size of graphics, they were different. Because of this you can't use the product. Right?
Before you start calling people "dumbass", you might want to consider that computer software falls into a separate legal category from most consumer goods. The First Sale doctrine doesn't apply, for starters.
I certainly wouldn't mind Steam offering "store credit" in exchange for taking a game off of your account as long as you had played that game for less than an hour. I'd say that if you can play a game for more than an hour, you really can't claim that it's seriously defective.
And yeah, call me insensitive, but having a slightly less than perfect HUD falls way short of any common sense definition of "fucked". Legally speaking, I mean. :P
However, allowing every customer to play one AAA game per month for 18+ hours for free? That'd be a clusterfuck to keep track of since everyone and their dog would abuse the fuck out of it.
Except that if you buy a steak knife and it doesn't cut STEAKS, then shouldn't you be allowed to return it?
This is analogous to the situation I am presenting. Not your "steak knife can't cut tin cans" scenario.
Read the OP. 2k Games very explicitly stated that the HUD would "appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at." That is a direct quote from the company. It doesn't do that. And it's not just my system, it has been proven now beyond a shadow of doubt that it is the fault of the game's coding. In fact, I have a private message from the main PR representative/community manager of 2k Games from yesterday admitting that the issue exists.
So this is very much an issue of a company selling a steak knife that doesn't cut steak.
Do try to follow. Somebody posted a link to a California law setting out the implied warranty of merchantability to rebut somebody else's argument that you can't expect to take everything and buy later. It's irrelevant to the OP's post. If the company ADVERTISED that its product does X and the product does not, in fact, do X, there is no "implied" anything to worry about, huh?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I don't know if you know this, but lawyers are fairly substantially more expensive than videogames. Prohibitively so.
Yes, because that's reasonable over a $50 game.
Definitely preferable to adequate consumer protection for digital media purchase.
You're a genius.
Yes. I had (perhaps unfairly) assumed you were being sarcastic.
So you agree that I do have a right to that type of recourse, yes?
Beyond that, though, why should that be my only means of redress? Why shouldn't consumer protections have more oversight so that a consumer isn't forced to enter into a legal situation to have a $50 product either function the way it should, or at least have the money refunded? People have suggested that allowing refunds opens this particular industry for abuse, but let's be pragmatic: Is a lawsuit any better? And are any of us still suffering under the delusion that piracy isn't totally rampant without people being able to return opened software?
Being able to download a cracked game is so trivial that (in the case of retail purchases, for instance) driving to the store, buying the game, driving home, ripping the disc (assuming you have the right tools to do so), driving back to the store, returning the game, driving home, and then waiting for a crack or whatever is actually much more of a hassle than just downloading it. I suggest that allowing refunds on opened games will have zero impact on piracy.
Well you have a legal course of action (which I'd suggest would be less-expensive than you think), or you could be a criminal. Do whatever you want, I'm not going to stop you.
Edit: Basically what you're arguing is that it's in Steams interest to make you happy. Well then, write Steam a letter.
It's not piracy per se that's the issue, it's "people buying the game, finishing it, then returning it" that drives these policies in relation to games.
That is not at all a clear cut issue. There was a federal court ruling not too long ago (2009, maybe 2008) that upheld the doctrine of first sale for software. I think the publisher involved was AutoDesk. Previous to that there have been federal court decisions going both ways.
There seems to be some is-ought confusion here. I know that California law likely does not apply here; I just happen to think that California law is fairly reasonable and would be fair if it were applied here. I was responding to a poster who was hostile towards the notion that any consumer anywhere should ever be able to rescind charges, calling it "theft." That's bullshit, and I called him on it.
1) Adequate consumer protection and lawyers are not mutually exclusive.
2) If the OP is not the only one with this issue, and it is unlikely that s/he is, there are things like class-action lawsuits. You don't pay your lawyer ahead of time for those.
But really, complaining to the company, your state's consumer protection office, and perhaps small-claims courts are all options in the meantime for dealing with the immediate problem.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The bare minimum legal action I can think of in this situation is small claims court, which would require him to take a day off of work (at least) and thus be considerably more expensive than simply giving up. If you are seriously espousing a legal course of action -- other than a credit card chargeback -- which can get a refund in this situation without costing Drez much money, perhaps you should deign to explain it to the rest of us, rather than spewing one-sentence trollish posts.
A class action suit will probably get OP a $2 gift certificate towards his next purchase, not a refund.
If the noble arbiters of justice in the US courts determine that Drez is owed $2 rather than $50, who are we to spout disloyal nonsense like "he was stiffed 48 bucks."
What the fuck are you talking about? Be a criminal? What the fuck are you talking about?
For the record, I bought BioShock 2 almost four months ago. I've received nearly four months of platitudes from their PR firm that the issue was going to be fixed. The patch notes for this latest patch included "fixed further issues related to HUD stretching." The patch came out and it wasn't fixed. Last night, the head PR agent for 2k Games (their community manager that communicates all technical issues consumers have with the game to the development team) admitted that this issue - the issue that she said was being worked on for months as a part of their bigger patch - wasn't even elevated to the developers.
Anyway, my point is, assuming you were talking about the chargeback stuff, that ship sailed four months ago.
No, what I'm arguing is that 2k Games is/should be legally obligated not to falsely advertise and that the consumer should not have to pull a lawyer out of their ass to have his rights protected. There should be easier forms of recourse for the consumer to pursue and that allowing refunds is one such possibility. It's not the only possibility, but "lawsuit" definitely shouldn't be the only possibility either.
No, no it's not.
You're taking an incredibly minor aspect of a game and blowing it way the fuck out of proportion.
Do you have a right to be upset that a game isn't perfect, or doesn't live up to every single pre-launch promise made by a developer or publisher? Sure.
Is that enough of a reason to demand a full refund for a game? No, not really.
You yourself said that other than the HUD, the graphics are fine on your monitor. The game loads, runs, and functions as well as any customer could reasonably expect.
You yourself admit that you're an outlier. You cannot expect any business to structure their return and refund policy around outliers.
2k should certainly work towards patching in a solution, as they did for the FOV complaints some users had with the PC version of BioShock 1, or the weapons text display glitch in the PC version of Borderlands. I'm surprised there isn't a user-made fix or mod out there already for this issue.
How many hours do you have played for BioShock 2?
If Steam is so terrible, don't use the service. I'm sorry about your 50 dollars.
Then as a class member (assuming you're not a representative of the class) you object to the settlement. Then nobody (particularly the lawyers) get a dime until either you're happy or the judge decides you are completely full of poo, and in the meantime you've dragged it out which tends to encourage people to shape up.
Of course these suits take forever and in the OP's shoes, I'd do the complaint + small claims route.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
But isn't that silly? Why does the solution need to be so extreme? I consider having to resort to a lawsuit - even small claims - to be rather extreme.
Why not increase oversight over consumer-business relations both for retail and digital purchases?
And why not work toward finding a way to eliminate the nebulous loopholes that allow a company that is international and "internet based" to get away with policies such as Valve has?
Buyer vs. Seller is an age-old problem that requires compromise of rights. I do not feel that the buyer should hold all the power but right now the sellers do. Valve has total power over its consumer. If it deems you've ever cheated in a multiplayer game it can VAC ban you and you have absolutely no recourse. They won't even converse with you about it. Apparently they can do something similar for your legitimately-purchased game library if they feel you've done something shady (which is something I am just finding ot about in this thread). And maybe someone of legal authority would deem Steam in the right for that. I don't know. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to enact policies that protect their business. But there should be some oversight so the consumer has an easier way to assert his rights than just "sue" which is not a trivial process, even if it's entirely free.
I totally agree, which is why I used "steak knife that doesn't cut tin cans" as my analogy rather than "steak knife that doesn't cut steak." In this case Drez seems to have been explicitly told, at the time of his irrevocable decision to purchase, that this steak knife can cut cans.
But he didn't buy a steak knife, he bought software, and because of the peculiar nature of the transaction, when he attempted to assert his rights as a consumer he found that his entire cutlery set had been teleported back to the manufacturer.
Uh, no. Unless I mis-read the OP, Steam and 2k have done nothing to restrict Drez's access to BioShock 2, or his Steam library.
Yes, yes it is.
Just because a steak knife only has one feature (it cuts steak) doesn't mean that every single advertised aspect of a more complicated product is as important to the overall product. If I buy a steak knife that was advertised "Mahogany handle! Stainless steel blade! Cuts steaks!" and the handle was actually made of oak instead of mahogany, it's as much of an issue as a steak knife that doesn't cut steak.
What you're basically saying here is that the complexity of a product means it is okay for any given number of advertised features to be broken because the overall or primary utility of the product isn't necessarily reduced, or because the ratio of working features is so high.
I fully, absolutely disagree.
Cool :^:
Terrible :v:
Not only should I be legally entitled to a full refund, but their business should be heavily censured for having engaged in explicitly false advertisement.
No, I said the HUD and menus stretch for me and for EVERY SINGLE PERSON who plays the game in 16:10 (and also 5:4 incidentally).
I expect the game to load, run, and function with correct aspect scaling proportions. I would be willing to forgive a little HUD stretching, though, if the company didn't explicitly advertise that there is no HUD stretching in the game before it came out.
I'm not an outlier. Every single consumer was falsely advertised to. That includes all the people who didn't notice the HUD stretch. It even includes the people that don't play the game in a 16:10 resolution and would never actually encounter the issue. All of those people have had their consumer rights infringed upon as much as I have. The fact that the issue actually bothers me personally is, in fact, irrelevant.
Please see my last post or so. They've been promising a patch to fix this for nearly four months now. I just found out yesterday that the issue was never properly elevated to the development team.
I think I've logged 1.5 hours total "play" time. However, I would answer "10 minutes or so." That's how long it took me to recognize the issue in the first place. All other time I've spent in the game were to take screenshots to provide to the 2k Games community manager, and for me to test out different resolutions and verify other bugs.
And nope, I'm not exaggerating. 2 hours in four months. I've spent at least 50 hours on the 2k Games forum though fucking talking about this goddamned issue.
Right. The 'implied warranty of merchantability' in the link is a tangent to that. 'Implied' means that if I sell you a chair, even if I don't say a thing about its performance and don't have a warranty, it is implied that the product is fit for its intended use. You can sit on the chair. If it breaks I can't say "Hey, I never told you it was sit-worthy and I never wrote a warranty for it." The exception is if the product is sold "as is". (I'm not making anything out of the fact that this was California law because it's a legal concept that exists in some form pretty much everywhere.)
Here the OP is telling us that the game does what it's supposed to do - he can install and run it on the advertised platform - but that there were explicit representations about the resolution it could run at, and those representations turned out to be untrue. We're beyond the issue of "hey, you sold me a computer game that is not in fact a game capable of running on a computer", and into misrepresentation, defects in the product, violation of the warranty, etc.
I'm really not disagreeing that this was a dick move on the company's part, or that there should be strong consumer protections for this sort of thing.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Confirming that I still have access to BioShock 2 and my Steam library.
And okay I understand what you mean by "steak knife that doesn't cut tin cans" but it doesn't really make a difference. If the steak knife is advertised to cut tin cans, then if it doesn't, it doesn't really matter that its primary function is to cut steak. I would be entitled to a refund IF that were an advertised feature and it did not actually perform that function.
I mean, really, it's none of Steam's or 2k Games' business why I buy a particular game. What if the only reason I bought BioShock 2 was because I wanted to sit and stare at perfect HUD elements. It's crazy, sure, but as that was one of its advertised features, a person could conceivably purchase it for that reason alone.
It doesn't matter if the 99% of the game's other features works because it could be any single advertised feature that compels a person to buy the game.
If I sell you a used car and I tell you the AC works, and it absolutely does not work, I should be obligated to either refund you the money or fix your AC at my own cost. Shouldn't I? Economics of depreciation notwithstanding (which don't apply to digital goods anyway, not in the standard framework of depreciation), isn't that what a judge would most likely rule? Or would he say "oh, but does the car drive? Well FUCK YOU. So what if the AC doesn't work?"
See the thing here is, 2k Games hasn't made any effort to fix this issue either. Either a refund or a fix is fine, but either should be required. It doesn't matter if I'm an "outlier" by your definition or if the issue is "trivial" - the company has a responsibility to ensure the product they promise is the one I receive, because what I *bought* was the product they advertised to me. That's the whole foundation of consumer protection against false advertisement.
Go before a judge then, they convert things to value all the time. The refund policy for the games makes sense, otherwise buy->beat->return would be stupidly prevalent. So if you think they falsely advertised thats your recourse, use it or don't.
Yeah, I'm fairly sure you and I never really disagreed in the first place. I think we just had very different interpretations of Squidget's post. You took Squidget at face value when he decried "free trial periods" while I interpreted that as a contention that consumer protections don't (or shouldn't) exist. Unless Squidget comes back, we'll never really know who was right
Then stop buying PC games. No, seriously. You are so far of an outlier that it's unreasonable for any developer, distributor or publisher to base their return policies on your perception of reasonable performance.
Edit: By your standards, every single PC game developer is guilty of false advertising and should be "heavily censured" and offer unrestricted refunds if they ever release a game that has any feature deemed by any player to be "broken". It's an impossible standard to expect from anyone, anywhere.
Really? You have a mental disorder that prevents you from being able to overlook an incredibly minor glitch that has no reasonable person would consider to be a game breaking issue.
The developers made one claim about said incredibly minor incidental feature before launch then, when they noticed the glitch that contradicted that claim, are making an effort to correct it.
Again, you are an outlier. You cannot expect actual real-world businesses to base their refund policies or their advertisements on outliers.
No, you're an outlier because you claim to have a mental disorder (OCD) that makes what any reasonable person would consider a minor annoyance into a gamebreaking issue that supposedly prevents you from playing the game. You are drastically overestimating the negative impact of an incredibly minor glitch, and in turn drastically overestimating what an appropriate remedy should be.
And? Why should they be legally obligated to prioritize your personal issue?
Really? 50 hours complaining about a slightly distorted HUD and you're not an outlier?
Okay, thanks, I'm glad we're on the same page at least insofar as this is concerned.
And I appreciate your suggestion about small claims court. I'm not really interested in that and to be honest I can deal with the HUD stretch - I'm just worried about the implications here. I've been trying to communicate the situation to the community manager there for four months. She told me that it was being worked on. It was in the patch notes. But it wasn't fixed and yesterday she tells me that she had misunderstood the problem all those months and that the issue was never actually competently described to the developers working on the patch.
Which is why I'm so frustrated. I never threatened them with any legal stuff. My ONLY recourse was to complain on the forum, and I've been doing that for four months with no success. And all the while I'm told by others that the issue is unimportant. It's maddening. My right to have a product as it was explicitly advertised to me is NOT unimportant and is NOT trivial.
I just wish that there were a way to ensure a consumer could file a grievance with some kind of independent party and that that grievance could actually be effective. All I really ever wanted was for the developers to take a look at this feature and hopefully fix it. But trying to even communicate the problem has been nearly impossible.
Similarly, (and to reopen this up to other businesses beyond software) I think businesses that reach a certain size should be legally required to have phone support. I absolutely loathe this "email only" kind of support shit. At least for billing issues. So many companies nowadays don't even have a billing support number. You know what sucks? Getting billed for something you already canceled, or getting billed double for something, and having to rely on email for a response. That just isn't right. More of a debatable issue, though, since it would require the company to actively spend resources on phone support.
Errr... I'm not sure why this is so.
I don't see how the industry would be dismantled if they had a policy along the lines of "when people complain because a feature we promised would be in the game isn't in the game, we'll refund them".
I feel like I would have been more on the company's side if they hadn't explicitly stated the game would work on widescreen resolutions. By making it explicit rather than assumed they made it a 'feature', regardless of how minute it is. When a feature is lacking, I perceive it differently than I would a bug in the game.
It does work, OP just has OCD which prevents him from overlooking a minor bug. They claimed it would be "indenticle" which was an actually impossible claim to satisfy.
Anyway, my point is very simple. This is false advertisement. It's very clearly so. Yes, bugs exist in games. I can accept them. However, it's very rare that a company will advertise their product as having Feature X and then it doesn't have Feature X. THAT is false advertisement. It's not the same as if a game is just shitty. This is a matter of a feature being advertised and the game not having that feature. Regardless of how tiny or non-integral that feature may be, it's false advertising.
If you disagree on that front, I have no desire to discuss anything with you, because your position is not sane.
Actually, I can overlook the bug. It does bother more more because of the OCD, yes, but I can deal with it.
And I just figured out today a way I can trick my computer into playing the game with the HUD non-stretched, but only in 16:9 mode. I have to switch my desktop to 16:9 before playing the game and I have to fiddle with a few video card options.
But that's really not the issue. The issue is that the game was explicitly advertised to have a similarly-appearing HUD in 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, and 16:10, and it does not, a fact that 2k Games has even admitted to at this point. I shouldn't be forced to play the game in 16:9 to play properly and I shouldn't be forced to play the game in 16:10 with improper stretch when not having to do so was an advertised feature of the game.
So, does it matter what a company advertises before release?
-Should they only be held to meeting the 'major' features?
-Should they be held to meeting any features?
-Does something become a feature when they explicitly state it'll be in the game?
-Does whether something is explicitly advertised not matter at all and all that matters is how serious the bug is?
Is it really such an out-there position to suggest that 96-hour demos for all digital products shouldn't be mandated by law? I feel like I've stepped into the twilight zone. Who exactly is supposed to be paying me?
I'm a gamer, a game developer, and a PA fan. I love PC games and I wish it were commercially viable for me to make them. It's not, and the rampant entitlement issues in this thread and others make up a lot of the reasons why it's not. Getting investors or publishers for a PC title is nigh-on impossible at this point because the open platform is so exploitable, and as much as I'd love to be able to return my PC games, that kind of feature would only make it even worse on the all-important development side.
It bothers me to hear people threatening legal action against developers for something that developers can't prevent, and it bothers me to hear PC gamers calling out developers for being greedy money-grubbing bastards when they should be working together trying to find ways to improve the platform for everyone.
Incidentally, if you want Valve to change their policies you should email them. More than any company I know, they build their features based on user feedback first. If a lot of people are asking for a thing, you're that much more likely to get it.