Sure. But if the company still doesn't make you happy, what are you going to do?
Providing satisfaction has to be reasonable. I'm not talking about some nebulous bullshit like "making me happy." I'm talking about rectifying an explicit, acute, specific example of false advertisement. This isn't about making me happy, this is about altering their product so it matches the explicit description of it that they advertised beforehand.
You misunderstand. I meant what if a company breaks the rules and just refuses to do as they should?
Personally, it would depend on how much money the product or service cost. While I am an idealist, I'm not going to waste time and money fighting over $50.
But that's really my point: there should be intermediary steps between "ignore the problem" and "sue." In my opinion, there should either be some more oversight by either a third party or an explicit body of law over these kinds of transactions. I don't think it's unreasonable. And I don't think of it as actually taking away a company's rights or freedoms. I mean we all agree that a company doesn't have a "right" to falsely advertise to consumers, right? It should be easier for a consumer to file some kind of grievance than to rely on the company itself to maybe, someday fix the problem on their own.
What I'm saying is, companies have far more power than consumers. That's the nature of money. A consumer has very little weight to throw around - there's no real way for a consumer to put any pressure on a company. The Better Business Bureau, for instance, is a joke, but it's something a lot of consumers erroneously believe can help them when they've been wronged.
The only muscle a consumer actually has is to sue, or threaten to sue. I abhor using the law as a weapon. I think there should be an easier way.
I don't know what the best way actually is, but consumer rights need more oversight. Right now we have a very lopsided system where consumers have almost no avenues of recourse or grievance beyond two extremes of fuggetaboutit and sue.
Well, you clearly are brain damaged. I'm not familiar with your particular brain disorder so I really don't know. I'll help you out here so you can converse on the same level as the rest of us.
The only proper way to respond to your (silly goosery) would earn me an infraction if not a ban. I have, for the most part, refrained from using personal insults towards you, yet you are unable to return the favor.
Instead, I'm going to put you on ignore for a while.
Oh boy I surely didn't expect a dismissive response after calling you out on your lies! Haha. It's so much easier than having to answer questions, isn't it?
I'll remind you that you were the one who brought the phrase "brain disorders" into the discussion in the first place. And considering your blatant trolling, I certainly won't miss your scintillating responses that ignore facts and have no inkling of logic to them.
Drez (or anyone else, I guess) can you name a PC game you've purchased in the last 10 years which was not falsely advertised in any way?
Explicit false advertisement of the nature that 2k Games engaged in with BioShock 2? Almost every game released in the last 10 years was not falsely advertised in a manner analogous to this situation.
And you still haven't directly answered my question: is false advertisement okay? You said "I don't think I've ever said that" but it's a clear implication in most of your posts, including the question you are posing here.
You're grasping at straws here. They don't have to give refunds "in perpetuity", they have to give a refund if a complaint is made within a certain length of time after the purchase, just like every other industry in existence does.
There are plenty of industries that do not offer full refunds to every customer who makes a complaint.
Also, if releasing a video game with any undocumented bugs is "false advertising", then why would complaints have to be made within a certain length of time? What if a bug only arises after 20+ hours of play?
There is no reason at all that they have to give a refund to "every single person" -- they have to give a refund to every person who demands a refund in a reasonable timeframe when a patch is unavailable.
Using the standard of "false advertising" means that every single customer has the right to a full refund, regardless of time frame or if they've experienced the issue.
Yes, some people will probably abuse this -- some guy buys Bioshock 2, doesn't like the game (or beats it quickly) and demands a refund for an issue he probably didn't actually care about.
Tons of people would abuse this. All the time. Because it means that everyone could play any game they want for a set amount of time for free and then demand a full refund.
But every other industry in existence puts up with this type of shit without dying off. Stores put up with shoplifters. Restaurants put up with dine and dashers. Big box retailers and manufacturers put up with bogus returns. It's only when it comes to video games (and to a lesser extent, intellectual property in general) that this ridiculous notion thrives, that if the customers are not treated like criminals the industry will die off. I've yet to see any actual studies supporting it; it's just industry rhetoric, and the extent to which people like yourself buy into it boggles my mind.
Again, plenty of industries dealing with physical media don't offer full refunds to every single customer who complains. Assuming that if a company dealing in digital media doesn't offer full refunds to every single customer who complains is treating their customers like criminals is laughable. They're treating them like customers. Have you ever worked retail?
You're right; a limited length of time for a refund isn't perfect, and some people will still be screwed over. I don't think a partial solution is somehow worse than the current situation, however. As for the length of time for which he should be able to get a refund due to false advertising, I think outside of the refund period it's acceptable to refer someone to small claims court or other legal options. Again, it is not a perfect solution, but it's better than the status quo. I don't understand people who see that a proposed solution is less than perfect and immediately declare it worthless. Pretty much every consumer protection law on the books is imperfect both in protecting customers from mistreatment and in protecting retailers/manufacturers from fraud. They're still a hell of a lot better than some libertarian wild west fantasy.
As for the treating them like criminals -- what other phrase would you use to describe a company which assumes (as you do) that a very large portion of its target market will wantonly abuse a refund system? Do they actually have even a shred of evidence to support the claim? Because I certainly have yet to see any. There are countless businesses that offer refund policies equivalent to or even more flexible than the basic plan outlined in my previous post, but if the video game industry were to adopt such a policy it would inevitably lead to a catastrophic collapse? It strains credulity.
Regarding the comparison to other media; I made no distinction between physical and digital media purchases. Further, I think lumping in other media (music, movies) with video games and other software is folly; a CD should (and in the vast vast majority of cases does) play in any CD player. A DVD should (and in the vast vast majority of cases does) play in any DVD player. In both cases, a defective product is likely to be defective physical media, for which the current exchange option is perfectly sufficient. It's only when it comes to games and software that we have products that can -- and frequently are -- defective on their target platform(s) not because of defective physical media but because of a systemic defect in the product. To suggest that these widely differing cases should be treated identically strikes me as absurd.
Drez (or anyone else, I guess) can you name a PC game you've purchased in the last 10 years which was not falsely advertised in any way?
I don't know. Probably, if I tried. Plenty of developers are smart enough to be conservative in their pre-release claims. Not everybody puts out bullshots.
And if your response is intended to imply that every developer does this...well, that hardly brings me over to your side and just convinces me all the more that change is needed. I'll ask again, do you work for or have you worked for any developers I've heard of? I'd like to know, so I can avoid them.
Regarding the comparison to other media; I made no distinction between physical and digital media purchases. Further, I think lumping in other media (music, movies) with video games and other software is folly; a CD should (and in the vast vast majority of cases does) play in any CD player. A DVD should (and in the vast vast majority of cases does) play in any DVD player. In both cases, a defective product is likely to be defective physical media, for which the current exchange option is perfectly sufficient. It's only when it comes to games and software that we have products that can -- and frequently are -- defective on their target platform(s) not because of defective physical media but because of a systemic defect in the product. To suggest that these widely differing cases should be treated identically strikes me as absurd.
Oh man, when this isn't the case it's hilarious. I remember working at Blockbuster when a DVD from Disney (forget which) had issues with a broad range of DVD players...they were playing fast and loose with the DVD standard (I suggested at the time this was why they didn't even carry the standard "DVD Video" logo anywhere on their case...because they'd not be allowed to) and wound up producing a disc that wouldn't play properly in all DVD players.
It was a particular issue for our store because one of the players that had problems was the one we had been selling for several months as part of a promo. Happy fun times.
Their answer, from what I could tell, was "We're Disney. Go fuck yourselves."
EDIT: And since they didn't actually place the standard "DVD Video" logo anywhere on the product, I'm not sure the consumer had any easy recourse.
Explicit false advertisement of the nature that 2k Games engaged in with BioShock 2? Almost every game released in the last 10 years was not falsely advertised in a manner analogous to this situation.
Really? I follow the PC game industry pretty closely, and I can't name a single one that held to the impossible standard you seem to be expecting. If nothing else, part of a game's advertising is minimum system requirements, and there are always systems that meet the minimum requirements but won't run the game for whatever reason. Can you name a recent PC game that has never engaged in that kind of false advertising?
And you still haven't directly answered my question: is false advertisement okay? You said "I don't think I've ever said that" but it's a clear implication in most of your posts, including the question you are posing here.
Loaded question. Intentionally lying to your customers isn't okay, but intent is an important aspect of this. Mistakes happen, and no game is ever released bug-free. If you aren't prepared to accept that a game you've purchased will have bugs, you should find another hobby.
You're right; a limited length of time for a refund isn't perfect, and some people will still be screwed over. I don't think a partial solution is somehow worse than the current situation, however. As for the length of time for which he should be able to get a refund due to false advertising, I think outside of the refund period it's acceptable to refer someone to small claims court or other legal options. Again, it is not a perfect solution, but it's better than the status quo. I don't understand people who see that a proposed solution is less than perfect and immediately declare it worthless. Pretty much every consumer protection law on the books is imperfect both in protecting customers from mistreatment and in protecting retailers/manufacturers from fraud. They're still a hell of a lot better than some libertarian wild west fantasy.
Except that there's a middle ground between the current status quo and what to me is an overly extreme solution that places far too much of a burden on developers, publishers and retailers. I know it's verboten to consider developers, publishers and retailers anything more than mustache-twirling silent movie villains, but any serious solution is going to be a compromise between buyers and sellers.
As for the treating them like criminals -- what other phrase would you use to describe a company which assumes (as you do) that a very large portion of its target market will wantonly abuse a refund system? Do they actually have even a shred of evidence to support the claim? Because I certainly have yet to see any. There are countless businesses that offer refund policies equivalent to or even more flexible than the basic plan outlined in my previous post, but if the video game industry were to adopt such a policy it would inevitably lead to a catastrophic collapse? It strains credulity.
Assuming a sizable chunk of your customer base will abuse a policy isn't treating them like criminals. Because doing so isn't against the law. It's assuming that your customers will, in essence, act in their own self-interest.
Refund policies, like most business choices, do not translate across the entire spectrum of businesses. Some industries can afford to implement policies that would cause more harm than good to other industries. Some of the proposed solutions to this issue would do serious damage to PC game development and publishing while at the same time making perfect sense for, say, the widget industry.
Regarding the comparison to other media; I made no distinction between physical and digital media purchases. Further, I think lumping in other media (music, movies) with video games and other software is folly; a CD should (and in the vast vast majority of cases does) play in any CD player. A DVD should (and in the vast vast majority of cases does) play in any DVD player. In both cases, a defective product is likely to be defective physical media, for which the current exchange option is perfectly sufficient. It's only when it comes to games and software that we have products that can -- and frequently are -- defective on their target platform(s) not because of defective physical media but because of a systemic defect in the product. To suggest that these widely differing cases should be treated identically strikes me as absurd.
Should a DVD or CD retailer offer a full cash refund to any customer who simply doesn't like the DVD or CD they purchased?
And again, if you claim that PC software that ships with any bug, or anything that any consumer could possibly perceive as a bug, is "defective", than all PC software is inherently defective. Since the underlying open hardware platform issues that make PC software perform less reliably than CD or DVD software won't go away unless Apple takes over the PC market completely, crafting a return policy that allows every customer to return every bit of software they buy is, to put it mildly, excessive.
Explicit false advertisement of the nature that 2k Games engaged in with BioShock 2? Almost every game released in the last 10 years was not falsely advertised in a manner analogous to this situation.
Really? I follow the PC game industry pretty closely, and I can't name a single one that held to the impossible standard you seem to be expecting. If nothing else, part of a game's advertising is minimum system requirements, and there are always systems that meet the minimum requirements but won't run the game for whatever reason. Can you name a recent PC game that has never engaged in that kind of false advertising?
And you still haven't directly answered my question: is false advertisement okay? You said "I don't think I've ever said that" but it's a clear implication in most of your posts, including the question you are posing here.
Loaded question. Intentionally lying to your customers isn't okay, but intent is an important aspect of this. Mistakes happen, and no game is ever released bug-free. If you aren't prepared to accept that a game you've purchased will have bugs, you should find another hobby.
So if I buy a game for my system after seeing that I meet the minimum required specs, and I install it only to find that it doesn't work, are you suggesting that it's absurd to think I deserve a refund for the game?
I know I've said it before in this thread, but I really do not understand the belief that incompetence or negligence is an excuse for false advertising.
You absolutely deserve either a refund or a patch in that case. A patch is a much more likely solution, since there's no easy way to tell whether you've actually experienced the issue, or if you've just beat the game and decided you'd rather have $50.
And of course, when patching, bugs need to be dealt with in order of importance.
Explicit false advertisement of the nature that 2k Games engaged in with BioShock 2? Almost every game released in the last 10 years was not falsely advertised in a manner analogous to this situation.
Really? I follow the PC game industry pretty closely, and I can't name a single one that held to the impossible standard you seem to be expecting. If nothing else, part of a game's advertising is minimum system requirements, and there are always systems that meet the minimum requirements but won't run the game for whatever reason. Can you name a recent PC game that has never engaged in that kind of false advertising?
And I wrote game reviews for five years and went to various conventions - including E3 (twice) - so I also follow it pretty closely.
Do you really see zero difference between advertising an explicit falsehood (intentional or not) and a game just not being as good as it the company hyped it up to be? Because there is a massive difference.
And you still haven't directly answered my question: is false advertisement okay? You said "I don't think I've ever said that" but it's a clear implication in most of your posts, including the question you are posing here.
Loaded question. Intentionally lying to your customers isn't okay, but intent is an important aspect of this. Mistakes happen, and no game is ever released bug-free. If you aren't prepared to accept that a game you've purchased will have bugs, you should find another hobby.
It's not a loaded question because intent is absolutely irrelevant. What does it really matter to a consumer if he was given false information intentionally, maliciously, or accidentally? Regardless of intent, the consumer was sold a product that didn't do exactly what it was explicitly advertised to do.
Again, there is a massive difference between explicit, specific false information and the kind of advertisement you are conflating it with. They are two incomparable things.
The "mistake" in this case involved a quote from the company that explicitly said they gave special attention to the issue to ensure it wouldn't be an issue. And lo and behold it was an issue. The intent here is irrelevant - this kind of explicit bungle is entirely unacceptable and I am really flabbergasted that you or any other consumer disagrees.
You absolutely deserve either a refund or a patch in that case. A patch is a much more likely solution, since there's no easy way to tell whether you've actually experienced the issue, or if you've just beat the game and decided you'd rather have $50.
And of course, when patching, bugs need to be dealt with in order of importance.
Of course, on Steam there is a fairly easy way to tell. Might not be foolproof, but anybody going through the trouble to get the hours played stat misreported is probably willing to just pirate the game anyway.
Just sayin'.
You absolutely deserve either a refund or a patch in that case. A patch is a much more likely solution, since there's no easy way to tell whether you've actually experienced the issue, or if you've just beat the game and decided you'd rather have $50.
And of course, when patching, bugs need to be dealt with in order of importance.
And that patch should come when? Just "sometime before Bioshock 3 comes out?"
Loaded question. Intentionally lying to your customers isn't okay, but intent is an important aspect of this. Mistakes happen, and no game is ever released bug-free. If you aren't prepared to accept that a game you've purchased will have bugs, you should find another hobby.
If your attitude is common among developers, then yeah I might be inclined to agree. And it does seem like it's getting more and more common.
So, I wonder which will kill the PC game industry faster...adding adequate consumer protection for gamers or developers putting out shoddy products and telling gamers to "suck it."
Let's say I set up at a flea market and say the following out loud:
"Hi, I'd like to tell you all about this button. My team of engineers has worked to ensure that this button, when pushed, will cycle between the following 10 colors: red, green, blue, orange, pink, magenta, purple, yellow, cyan, and mauve. No matter where you are standing, or what you are doing, the WonderLED will cycle through all 10 colors when you push this button."
I then sell fifty buttons to the crowd. None of the buttons ever light up in cyan. I wasn't lying, I really thought that the buttons lit up in cyan. And most of the 50 people don't even notice or care. But three people do.
Given the wording in my advertisement, are you guys over on that side of the debate really telling me that that's not false advertisement? That it is an acceptable mistake? That the three people complaining about cyan not being a part of the cycle aren't entitled to me either fixing the product or, barring that, issuing a refund?
Let's say I set up at a flea market and say the following out loud:
"Hi, I'd like to tell you all about this button. My team of engineers has worked to ensure that this button, when pushed, will cycle between the following 10 colors: red, green, blue, orange, pink, magenta, purple, yellow, cyan, and mauve. No matter where you are standing, or what you are doing, the WonderLED will cycle through all 10 colors when you push this button."
I then sell fifty buttons to the crowd. None of the buttons ever light up in cyan. I wasn't lying, I really thought that the buttons lit up in cyan. And most of the 50 people don't even notice or care. But three people do.
Given the wording in my advertisement, are you guys over on that side of the debate really telling me that that's not false advertisement? That it is an acceptable mistake? That the three people complaining about cyan not being a part of the cycle aren't entitled to me either fixing the product or, barring that, issuing a refund?
The flea market vendor should, out of decensy, give you a refund. But if they won't (because they are assholes) I think you're just shit out of luck. Tell your friends not to visit that guy, complain to the flea market management.
What we're talking about is a breakdown in customer/producer relations. If things break down, you can choose to escalate it, but it's really really probably not worth it.
Hell, I might spend 5 more minutes doing research before buying something off Steam because of this thread. So you could consider that a minor victory.
You're right; a limited length of time for a refund isn't perfect, and some people will still be screwed over. I don't think a partial solution is somehow worse than the current situation, however. As for the length of time for which he should be able to get a refund due to false advertising, I think outside of the refund period it's acceptable to refer someone to small claims court or other legal options. Again, it is not a perfect solution, but it's better than the status quo. I don't understand people who see that a proposed solution is less than perfect and immediately declare it worthless. Pretty much every consumer protection law on the books is imperfect both in protecting customers from mistreatment and in protecting retailers/manufacturers from fraud. They're still a hell of a lot better than some libertarian wild west fantasy.
Except that there's a middle ground between the current status quo and what to me is an overly extreme solution that places far too much of a burden on developers, publishers and retailers. I know it's verboten to consider developers, publishers and retailers anything more than mustache-twirling silent movie villains, but any serious solution is going to be a compromise between buyers and sellers.
As for the treating them like criminals -- what other phrase would you use to describe a company which assumes (as you do) that a very large portion of its target market will wantonly abuse a refund system? Do they actually have even a shred of evidence to support the claim? Because I certainly have yet to see any. There are countless businesses that offer refund policies equivalent to or even more flexible than the basic plan outlined in my previous post, but if the video game industry were to adopt such a policy it would inevitably lead to a catastrophic collapse? It strains credulity.
Assuming a sizable chunk of your customer base will abuse a policy isn't treating them like criminals. Because doing so isn't against the law. It's assuming that your customers will, in essence, act in their own self-interest.
Refund policies, like most business choices, do not translate across the entire spectrum of businesses. Some industries can afford to implement policies that would cause more harm than good to other industries. Some of the proposed solutions to this issue would do serious damage to PC game development and publishing while at the same time making perfect sense for, say, the widget industry.
Regarding the comparison to other media; I made no distinction between physical and digital media purchases. Further, I think lumping in other media (music, movies) with video games and other software is folly; a CD should (and in the vast vast majority of cases does) play in any CD player. A DVD should (and in the vast vast majority of cases does) play in any DVD player. In both cases, a defective product is likely to be defective physical media, for which the current exchange option is perfectly sufficient. It's only when it comes to games and software that we have products that can -- and frequently are -- defective on their target platform(s) not because of defective physical media but because of a systemic defect in the product. To suggest that these widely differing cases should be treated identically strikes me as absurd.
Should a DVD or CD retailer offer a full cash refund to any customer who simply doesn't like the DVD or CD they purchased?
And again, if you claim that PC software that ships with any bug, or anything that any consumer could possibly perceive as a bug, is "defective", than all PC software is inherently defective. Since the underlying open hardware platform issues that make PC software perform less reliably than CD or DVD software won't go away unless Apple takes over the PC market completely, crafting a return policy that allows every customer to return every bit of software they buy is, to put it mildly, excessive.
If you want to discuss a middle ground, can you at least come up with some specific ideas? All I've seen is essentially the claim that if a software publisher is ever held liable for a defective product it will utterly destroy the software industry. I don't see how a middle ground can reconcile with that belief, but I'm certainly willing to listen. I don't want to see game developers or other software developers go out of business anymore than you do; I work for a software developer! But I also think the status quo, wherein a publisher can release a horrifically buggy product and tell paying customers to fuck off in response to their complaints, should not be acceptable to any reasonable person.
Regarding "criminals"; fair enough, I was using it as a set phrase moreso than a literal claim. We can say they are treating their customers like "wanton greedy assholes" instead, if you would prefer, though I daresay it is not as catchy. Whichever phrase we choose, the point is that I believe you (and developers, publishers, etc who espouse similar opinions) are doing to customers what you accuse me of doing to developers and publishers; treating them as faceless cartoonish villains.
As for returning movies or music that a consumer just doesn't like; no, I don't think that's a reasonable practice. A bad movie is not a defective product; a bad game may be a defective product if it is bad because of bugs. Trying to determine which bugs are and are not refund-worthy is difficult. However, I do not hesitate to say that when software fails on all PCs to support a feature it is advertised to support, it should be eligible for a refund. If this is devastating to the developer or publisher, then at least it sends a clear message that advertisements should be vague if they aren't willing to back them up.
Let's say I set up at a flea market and say the following out loud:
"Hi, I'd like to tell you all about this button. My team of engineers has worked to ensure that this button, when pushed, will cycle between the following 10 colors: red, green, blue, orange, pink, magenta, purple, yellow, cyan, and mauve. No matter where you are standing, or what you are doing, the WonderLED will cycle through all 10 colors when you push this button."
I then sell fifty buttons to the crowd. None of the buttons ever light up in cyan. I wasn't lying, I really thought that the buttons lit up in cyan. And most of the 50 people don't even notice or care. But three people do.
Given the wording in my advertisement, are you guys over on that side of the debate really telling me that that's not false advertisement? That it is an acceptable mistake? That the three people complaining about cyan not being a part of the cycle aren't entitled to me either fixing the product or, barring that, issuing a refund?
The flea market vendor should, out of decensy, give you a refund. But if they won't (because they are assholes) I think you're just shit out of luck. Tell your friends not to visit that guy, complain to the flea market management.
What we're talking about is a breakdown in customer/producer relations. If things break down, you can choose to escalate it, but it's really really probably not worth it.
Hell, I might spend 5 more minutes doing research before buying something off Steam because of this thread. So you could consider that a minor victory.
I'm talking about what the flea market vendor should be legally obligated to do in that situation.
You (and Squidget0) seem to be in favor of a legal gray zone where the vendor isn't actually legally obligated to do anything in those kinds of situations.
Let's say I set up at a flea market and say the following out loud:
"Hi, I'd like to tell you all about this button. My team of engineers has worked to ensure that this button, when pushed, will cycle between the following 10 colors: red, green, blue, orange, pink, magenta, purple, yellow, cyan, and mauve. No matter where you are standing, or what you are doing, the WonderLED will cycle through all 10 colors when you push this button."
I then sell fifty buttons to the crowd. None of the buttons ever light up in cyan. I wasn't lying, I really thought that the buttons lit up in cyan. And most of the 50 people don't even notice or care. But three people do.
Given the wording in my advertisement, are you guys over on that side of the debate really telling me that that's not false advertisement? That it is an acceptable mistake? That the three people complaining about cyan not being a part of the cycle aren't entitled to me either fixing the product or, barring that, issuing a refund?
The flea market vendor should, out of decensy, give you a refund. But if they won't (because they are assholes) I think you're just shit out of luck. Tell your friends not to visit that guy, complain to the flea market management.
What we're talking about is a breakdown in customer/producer relations. If things break down, you can choose to escalate it, but it's really really probably not worth it.
Hell, I might spend 5 more minutes doing research before buying something off Steam because of this thread. So you could consider that a minor victory.
I'm talking about what the flea market vendor should be legally obligated to do in that situation.
You (and Squidget0) seem to be in favor of a legal gray zone where the vendor isn't actually legally obligated to do anything in those kinds of situations.
Is that about right?
Pretty much.
With a healthy dose of "yea, well J-walking is illegal but we don't send the cops after you."
I mean really, we're talking about something that in a perfect world would'nt have happened. And in a world where all laws are enforced 100% they would be punished (maybe, not sure about internet law). We don't live in either of those places.
If you want to discuss a middle ground, can you at least come up with some specific ideas? All I've seen is essentially the claim that if a software publisher is ever held liable for a defective product it will utterly destroy the software industry. I don't see how a middle ground can reconcile with that belief, but I'm certainly willing to listen. I don't want to see game developers or other software developers go out of business anymore than you do; I work for a software developer! But I also think the status quo, wherein a publisher can release a horrifically buggy product and tell paying customers to fuck off in response to their complaints, should not be acceptable to any reasonable person.
Except I'm not making that claim, I'm simply disputing what the proper definition of "defective" is.
When it comes to Steam, I do think they should offer a limited number of refunds (or "store credit") per account for games that have been owned less than, say, 48-72 hours and (importantly) have been played less than 1-2 hours max. That allows people who have serious issues running a game the option to purchase something else after the game is deleted from their account. It's still a system that's open to abuse, but it has enough limits to prevent egregious abuses.
For other methods of distributing PC games, either brick & mortar or other online download to own sites that don't track time played or have the ability to remove or restrict access to downloaded programs, I think it has to be up to them to set their return policies and make them crystal clear to their customers. Perhaps retailers can set up a system to check if an activation code has been used before issuing a refund or credit.
Of course, PC game developers should take the initiative to release realistic minimum system specs, demos or benchmark "can I run this" programs, and endeavor to patch up any and all issues as quickly as is reasonably possible. I don't see how this could be legislated, however.
As for returning movies or music that a consumer just doesn't like; no, I don't think that's a reasonable practice. A bad movie is not a defective product; a bad game may be a defective product if it is bad because of bugs. Trying to determine which bugs are and are not refund-worthy is difficult. However, I do not hesitate to say that when software fails on all PCs to support a feature it is advertised to support, it should be eligible for a refund. If this is devastating to the developer or publisher, then at least it sends a clear message that advertisements should be vague if they aren't willing to back them up.
That's fine in theory, but every PC game launch features a whole raft of "This game is unplayable and completely broken and I demand a refund and a pony!" complaints. Some of these are reasonable, some of them are, to be charitable, not. Allowing the most vocal minority of customers to define when a developer fails to support a feature holds developers to an unrealistic standard.
As for returning movies or music that a consumer just doesn't like; no, I don't think that's a reasonable practice. A bad movie is not a defective product; a bad game may be a defective product if it is bad because of bugs. Trying to determine which bugs are and are not refund-worthy is difficult. However, I do not hesitate to say that when software fails on all PCs to support a feature it is advertised to support, it should be eligible for a refund. If this is devastating to the developer or publisher, then at least it sends a clear message that advertisements should be vague if they aren't willing to back them up.
That's fine in theory, but every PC game launch features a whole raft of "This game is unplayable and completely broken and I demand a refund and a pony!" complaints. Some of these are reasonable, some of them are, to be charitable, not. Allowing the most vocal minority of customers to define when a developer fails to support a feature holds developers to an unrealistic standard.
I assume you're still alluding to my BioShock 2 example here.
There is no "vocal minority" here "defining" a failure to support a feature.
The lack of feature in this case is a scientifically proven fact given the quote in the article and the actual game code. They've defined their own flaw, the customers haven't.
This is an important distinction.
They have obligated themselves to fix the code. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they should be legally obligated to make the product match their advertisement even if ZERO customers complained about it. Even if an absolute, flat zero people complained, they should still spend resources fixing it.
Because it's not at all about the customer in this case, it's about saying that the product has an exact feature and then the product doesn't.
Let me say that by and large, I do agree that a game is not "broken" or "defective" unless it is highly unworkable.
Take games like Boiling Point and Daggerfall. Daggerfall is probably the buggiest complex game in gaming history. Boiling Point isn't too far behind. Sure, you could get through either game despite the tons and tons of bugs, but they were a real mess. I'd call those defective.
However, I'm torn, because Daggerfall is - in my opinion - the best TES game, even despite the bugs.
They may not be as broken as a game like, say, eXtreme Paintbrawl. I forget which one...the 2nd? The 4th? The installer it came packaged with uninstalled the game right after installing it. That's just hilarious, and absolutely "broken." But that's an extreme example. A game doesn't need to be literally unplayable to be defective. I think a large number of defects, bugs, or even broken features can earn a game that moniker.
On the flip side, though, I'm not sure we really need to protect moderately broken games from being returned, or legally obligating the company to fix the product. Do we really need a bunch of crap on the market? Also, there's a difference between absent features and wholly broken ones. And no one is obligating a company to include any particular feature.
But when a company says "our game has this feature" and it doesn't, they've obligated themselves into providing it. It's just weird to argue otherwise.
==EDIT==
The whole point I am trying to make is that there's a sharp divide between the following two circumstances:
1) Customer expects features X, Y, and Z in Game. Game doesn't have them. Customer is displeased.
2) Company says features X, Y, and Z are in Game. Game doesn't have them. Customer is displeased.
When a company explicitly states that their product or service includes a particular feature, and there was no way to misinterpret that promise, the company is obligated to provide that feature. The magnitude of the feature is completely irrelevant. I simply cannot understand how any reasonable person could think otherwise.
Wait, are we still talking about bioshock? Let me get this straight: the game said it supported your widescreen resolution and a ui element was stretched from 16:9 to 16:10? Man, you sure haven't been playing computer games long, have you? Look, you set your custom widescreen resolution and not only did the renderer not crash, but it rendered the game world at the right aspect ratio, and the ui was stretched, not from 4:3, but from a slightly different widescreen ratio? I'll bet you didn't even need to edit some undocumented config file, either! You clearly have no idea what "supported" means in this industry.
You (and Squidget0) seem to be in favor of a legal gray zone where the vendor isn't actually legally obligated to do anything in those kinds of situations.
Is that about right?
Pretty much.
With a healthy dose of "yea, well J-walking is illegal but we don't send the cops after you."
I mean really, we're talking about something that in a perfect world would'nt have happened. And in a world where all laws are enforced 100% they would be punished (maybe, not sure about internet law). We don't live in either of those places.[/QUOTE]
Wait, I don't think I understand you correctly. If I sell you a device that I say flashes 10 colors and it in fact only flashes 9 colors, you don't think I have the right to a refund?
Wait, are we still talking about bioshock? Let me get this straight: the game said it supported your widescreen resolution and a ui element was stretched from 16:9 to 16:10? Man, you sure haven't been playing computer games long, have you? Look, you set your custom widescreen resolution and not only did the renderer not crash, but it rendered the game world at the right aspect ratio, and the ui was stretched, not from 4:3, but from a slightly different widescreen ratio? I'll bet you didn't even need to edit some undocumented config file, either! You clearly have no idea what "supported" means in this industry.
Did you even read anything in the thread?
Let me get this straight: the game said it supported your widescreen resolution and a ui element was stretched from 16:9 to 16:10?
Nope! That's not even remotely what we're discussing. An article posted by 2k Games 11 days before the game came out (on their own website) said the following, verbatim:"The game has been optimized to ensure that all game elements such as menus, HUD, UI, etc appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at."
The word "supported" isn't even used. They explicitly state that the game "HAS BEEN OPTIMIZED" (which is past tense, and remember this was 11 days before the retail release, and almost certainly after the game had gone gold so the code couldn't have changed after the article was posted) "TO ENSURE...menus, HUD...APPEAR EXACTLY THE SAME."
I know what the word "supported" means. You know, despite the fact that the word "supported" doesn't enter into this discussion whatsoever. My turn: Do you know what any of the following words mean? "Has," "been," "optimized," "ensure," "appear," "exactly," and "same"? I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I really do wonder.
I mean, really, how many times am I going to have to repeat myself? If you're not even going to bother doing the minimal amount of reading needed to comprehend the topic we're discussing, why bother inserting yourself into the conversation? It's not like this is a terribly long thread. And all of this was laid out clearly in the very first post, even if you didn't feel like reading the entire thread up until you decided to smash at your keyboard. I feel like adding "and people that don't bother reading before posting" to the thread title since that seems to actually be the biggest problem this thread has uncovered.
Except I'm not making that claim, I'm simply disputing what the proper definition of "defective" is.
When it comes to Steam, I do think they should offer a limited number of refunds (or "store credit") per account for games that have been owned less than, say, 48-72 hours and (importantly) have been played less than 1-2 hours max. That allows people who have serious issues running a game the option to purchase something else after the game is deleted from their account. It's still a system that's open to abuse, but it has enough limits to prevent egregious abuses.
I'd consider this to be a perfectly reasonable solution to these sorts of problems. There are a few loopholes you'd need to plug (offline mode and multiple Steam accounts chief among them), but it's by no means an unworkable scenario.
Wait, are we still talking about bioshock? Let me get this straight: the game said it supported your widescreen resolution and a ui element was stretched from 16:9 to 16:10? Man, you sure haven't been playing computer games long, have you? Look, you set your custom widescreen resolution and not only did the renderer not crash, but it rendered the game world at the right aspect ratio, and the ui was stretched, not from 4:3, but from a slightly different widescreen ratio? I'll bet you didn't even need to edit some undocumented config file, either! You clearly have no idea what "supported" means in this industry.
They said it would appear "EXACTLY THE SAME" and ovals aren't aren't aren't the same as circles and if if if anyone tries to tell my circles are ovals again I'm going to set the building on fire cause they said it would be exactly the same and its not and they they they promised.
The real solution to this problem isn't a patch, its a pill.
Wait, are we still talking about bioshock? Let me get this straight: the game said it supported your widescreen resolution and a ui element was stretched from 16:9 to 16:10? Man, you sure haven't been playing computer games long, have you? Look, you set your custom widescreen resolution and not only did the renderer not crash, but it rendered the game world at the right aspect ratio, and the ui was stretched, not from 4:3, but from a slightly different widescreen ratio? I'll bet you didn't even need to edit some undocumented config file, either! You clearly have no idea what "supported" means in this industry.
They said it would appear "EXACTLY THE SAME" and ovals aren't aren't aren't the same as circles and if if if anyone tries to tell my circles are ovals again I'm going to set the building on fire cause they said it would be exactly the same and its not and they they they promised.
The real solution to this problem isn't a patch, its a pill.
Nah, the real solution to this is a patch (preferably) or a refund (if they are incapable of providing a patch). And the actual real solution is to not ever falsely advertise a product.
But that's cool, man. I get that you only care about being pedantic, that you don't comprehend the concept of "appearing exactly the same" regardless of the underlying mathematics that don't actually affect the appearance to the end use, and basically don't care about your own consumer rights.
But like I said, it's cool. Keep on truckin' with that condescending armchair psychoanalysis. Trust me, I have my own opinion regarding the psychology and general sanity of people who are so apathetic towards their own rights as consumers.
Wait, are we still talking about bioshock? Let me get this straight: the game said it supported your widescreen resolution and a ui element was stretched from 16:9 to 16:10? Man, you sure haven't been playing computer games long, have you? Look, you set your custom widescreen resolution and not only did the renderer not crash, but it rendered the game world at the right aspect ratio, and the ui was stretched, not from 4:3, but from a slightly different widescreen ratio? I'll bet you didn't even need to edit some undocumented config file, either! You clearly have no idea what "supported" means in this industry.
Did you even read anything in the thread?
Let me get this straight: the game said it supported your widescreen resolution and a ui element was stretched from 16:9 to 16:10?
Nope! That's not even remotely what we're discussing. An article posted by 2k Games 11 days before the game came out (on their own website) said the following, verbatim:"The game has been optimized to ensure that all game elements such as menus, HUD, UI, etc appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at."
The word "supported" isn't even used. They explicitly state that the game "HAS BEEN OPTIMIZED" (which is past tense, and remember this was 11 days before the retail release, and almost certainly after the game had gone gold so the code couldn't have changed after the article was posted) "TO ENSURE...menus, HUD...APPEAR EXACTLY THE SAME."
I know what the word "supported" means. You know, despite the fact that the word "supported" doesn't enter into this discussion whatsoever. My turn: Do you know what any of the following words mean? "Has," "been," "optimized," "ensure," "appear," "exactly," and "same"? I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I really do wonder.
I mean, really, how many times am I going to have to repeat myself? If you're not even going to bother doing the minimal amount of reading needed to comprehend the topic we're discussing, why bother inserting yourself into the conversation? It's not like this is a terribly long thread. And all of this was laid out clearly in the very first post, even if you didn't feel like reading the entire thread up until you decided to smash at your keyboard. I feel like adding "and people that don't bother reading before posting" to the thread title since that seems to actually be the biggest problem this thread has uncovered.
So here's what I'm reading: someone from the company mentioned in an interview that screen elements would be the same for each resolution. He was mistaken (unsurprising as the sales team rarely knows what the developers are doing), and for your chosen resolution, they were off by (doing quick math here) 11%. This destroyed your enjoyment of the game to the point where you want a full refund, I.e. you clearly got no enjoyment from the game whatsoever solely because of this issue.
Wait, are we still talking about bioshock? Let me get this straight: the game said it supported your widescreen resolution and a ui element was stretched from 16:9 to 16:10? Man, you sure haven't been playing computer games long, have you? Look, you set your custom widescreen resolution and not only did the renderer not crash, but it rendered the game world at the right aspect ratio, and the ui was stretched, not from 4:3, but from a slightly different widescreen ratio? I'll bet you didn't even need to edit some undocumented config file, either! You clearly have no idea what "supported" means in this industry.
Did you even read anything in the thread?
Let me get this straight: the game said it supported your widescreen resolution and a ui element was stretched from 16:9 to 16:10?
Nope! That's not even remotely what we're discussing. An article posted by 2k Games 11 days before the game came out (on their own website) said the following, verbatim:"The game has been optimized to ensure that all game elements such as menus, HUD, UI, etc appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at."
The word "supported" isn't even used. They explicitly state that the game "HAS BEEN OPTIMIZED" (which is past tense, and remember this was 11 days before the retail release, and almost certainly after the game had gone gold so the code couldn't have changed after the article was posted) "TO ENSURE...menus, HUD...APPEAR EXACTLY THE SAME."
I know what the word "supported" means. You know, despite the fact that the word "supported" doesn't enter into this discussion whatsoever. My turn: Do you know what any of the following words mean? "Has," "been," "optimized," "ensure," "appear," "exactly," and "same"? I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I really do wonder.
I mean, really, how many times am I going to have to repeat myself? If you're not even going to bother doing the minimal amount of reading needed to comprehend the topic we're discussing, why bother inserting yourself into the conversation? It's not like this is a terribly long thread. And all of this was laid out clearly in the very first post, even if you didn't feel like reading the entire thread up until you decided to smash at your keyboard. I feel like adding "and people that don't bother reading before posting" to the thread title since that seems to actually be the biggest problem this thread has uncovered.
So here's what I'm reading: someone from the company mentioned in an interview that screen elements would be the same for each resolution. He was mistaken (unsurprising as the sales team rarely knows what the developers are doing), and for your chosen resolution, they were off by (doing quick math here) 11%. This destroyed your enjoyment of the game to the point where you want a full refund, I.e. you clearly got no enjoyment from the game whatsoever solely because of this issue.
And I'm the one being unreasonable?
Yes.
Glad we cleared that up.
edit:
The question asked in the Q&A was:
How did you deal with widescreen? How will someone on a regular monitor and a widescreen monitor see the game?
And the answer was:
We support single-screen 4:3, 5:4, 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions. The game has been optimized to ensure that all game elements such as menus, HUD, UI, etc appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at. The only major difference for 4:3 and 5:4 users will be the smaller Field of View compared to a widescreen resolution.
You like percentages, right? Well 100% of the question was worded to illustrate to potential consumers how the game would appear to them. And approximately 67% of the answer to that question was explicitly worded to state that the game was designed to ensure the appearance of HUD elements and menus would appear the same in all resolutions/aspect ratios. In other words, the question and answer were specifically designed to ensure the particular thing I am now complaining about would never be an issue.
The only way you could parse that as something to be acceptably mistaken about when the entire Q&A was designed by 2k Games themselves to provide data on the game a week and a half before it was street dated, and that particular question was designed to answer the exact problem I am now complaining about, is if you are being entirely unreasonable.
Yeah. Here's how life works: sometimes, sales & marketing is misinformed about every detail of their product, particularly before its release. If this extraordinarily minor interface glitch is the largest issue the game has, then by the hilariously awful software engineering standards of the games industry, you should be goddamn ecstatic.
Yeah. Here's how life works: sometimes, sales & marketing is misinformed about every detail of their product, particularly before its release. If this extraordinarily minor interface glitch is the largest issue the game has, then by the hilariously awful software engineering standards of the games industry, you should be goddamn ecstatic.
And this is also how life works: False advertisement is illegal in every legal jurisdiction I can think of. Whether a company intended to engage in false advertisement or they did so though sheer stupidity is unimportant because the end result is the company made an explicit claim as to what their product does and the consumer purchased that product assuming the product did what it was explicitly advertised to do, with all its explicitly advertised features. The bottom line is this: consumers engaged in a good faith transaction based on information the company itself provided, and the company did not hold hold up their end of the bargain, at least not in full.
The bare minimum a consumer should expect in that situation is that the company either makes their product equivalent to what was advertised or they should refund the money if they can't or won't do so. That a bunch of you refuse to expect that is half the reason companies get away with shady business practices. Because people don't even stick up for their own rights.
Do you know when it's MOST important to stick up for your rights? When they actually don't matter to you. When they affect the minority. Because if we only stick up for ourselves when the transgressions are huge and obvious, we grant people (and companies) a lot of leeway they can exploit.
So really the choice is yours. I don't even remotely disagree that the HUD stretching is a relatively unimportant issue. I know it is. But it was an explicitly advertised feature so regardless of how trivial the issue is - or maybe because of it - it's very important that 2k Games fixes it. A company shouldn't ever get away with explicit false advertisement, not even because of the kind of mistake you are talking about.
If you disagree, that's fine. I feel very sorry for you though, and I feel you do the entire consumer body, as well as the gaming industry as a whole, a disservice with your complacency. That goes for Lawndart, tinwhiskers, and all the other silly geese arguing on 2k Games' behalf. Your opinions astound me.
(This is despite the fact that BioShock 2 for the PC was a laughable mess when it was released and still is even after four months and three patches. But I don't really care about that. Let's just assume the only glitch in the game is this HUD/menu stretching in 16:10. My point would be just as valid.)
No, it's not valid, and the fact that you're standing alone here might clue you in on that. This isn't some huge thing on the box here, this is one comment in a prerelease interview, buried on their website, and frankly, a UI stretch from 1.77 to 1.6 is acceptable by game industry standards. Are you seriously claiming that due to this one issue, you feel entitled to a full refund?
a UI stretch from 1.77 to 1.6 is acceptable by game industry standards.
You know, I agree with this. Rather a lot worse can be justified by "game industry standards." But I have to wonder whether perhaps these "game industry standards" are as shoddy as they are because it is standing policy, in many situations, to make it impossible to return a PC game.
a UI stretch from 1.77 to 1.6 is acceptable by game industry standards.
You know, I agree with this. Rather a lot worse can be justified by "game industry standards." But I have to wonder whether perhaps these "game industry standards" are as shoddy as they are because it is standing policy, in many situations, to make it to return a PC game.
Standards are low because it'sa toy. It's kinda like how the toy industry doesn't fabricate plastic parts to the same standards as the aerospace industry.
No, it's not valid, and the fact that you're standing alone here might clue you in on that.
Standing alone? Uhh, more people agree with me than disagree. In fact, the three or four or so of you that seem to think it's okay to falsely advertise are the "vocal minority" in this thread.
Really, I'm curious: Do you suspend your reality when you post so you can suit your own fantasies?
Only if by "buried on their website" You mean "featured on their website before purchase, right when preorder incentives also started getting advertised." It was prominently featured on the website at the time it was posted, which is the most relevant period of time to this discussion?
and frankly, a UI stretch from 1.77 to 1.6 is acceptable by game industry standards.
And who has defined these "game industry standards"? Please cite them. I assume you're referring to what can be observed in a majority of games out there. UI stretch certainly happens a from time to time, but whether that is "acceptable" is up to debate. About 99% of properly-programmed games don't have it. In fact, in 99% of games out there, the UI scales to the same ratio the 3D graphics do. Few have 2d and 3d elements that scale differently.
Are you seriously claiming that due to this one issue, you feel entitled to a full refund?
I'm claiming that I am fully entitled to this being fixed. I don't personally think I'm entitled to a refund after four months of owning it, no. I chose to give them the benefit of the doubt. Right after the time of purchase though? Absolutely. But I chose to wait it out in hopes it would be fixed. Mainly because they promised it would be when the issue was immediately pointed out to them. Not that I could have actually gotten a refund anyway.
a UI stretch from 1.77 to 1.6 is acceptable by game industry standards.
You know, I agree with this. Rather a lot worse can be justified by "game industry standards." But I have to wonder whether perhaps these "game industry standards" are as shoddy as they are because it is standing policy, in many situations, to make it to return a PC game.
Standards are low because it'sa toy. It's kinda like how the toy industry doesn't fabricate plastic parts to the same standards as the aerospace industry.
a UI stretch from 1.77 to 1.6 is acceptable by game industry standards.
You know, I agree with this. Rather a lot worse can be justified by "game industry standards." But I have to wonder whether perhaps these "game industry standards" are as shoddy as they are because it is standing policy, in many situations, to make it to return a PC game.
Standards are low because it'sa toy. It's kinda like how the toy industry doesn't fabricate plastic parts to the same standards as the aerospace industry.
Yeah. So when it doesn't meet standards, the company is only on the hook for a refund and not a wrongful death suite.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I'll be honest, I don't know if Drez is serious or just having an excellent time trolling the hell out of people. Either way, this thread is hilarious.
Man, as soon as I saw legionofone posted I predicted his post almost word-for-word before even clicking on it. It's funny how certain people on this forum are nothing but cardboard cutouts of a real person.
Yeah. Here's how life works: sometimes, sales & marketing is misinformed about every detail of their product, particularly before its release. If this extraordinarily minor interface glitch is the largest issue the game has, then by the hilariously awful software engineering standards of the games industry, you should be goddamn ecstatic.
And again, I instantly reject the "triviality" argument since they made a point to mention this specific issue in their pre-release Q&A.
Except I'm not making that claim, I'm simply disputing what the proper definition of "defective" is.
When it comes to Steam, I do think they should offer a limited number of refunds (or "store credit") per account for games that have been owned less than, say, 48-72 hours and (importantly) have been played less than 1-2 hours max. That allows people who have serious issues running a game the option to purchase something else after the game is deleted from their account. It's still a system that's open to abuse, but it has enough limits to prevent egregious abuses.
I'd consider this to be a perfectly reasonable solution to these sorts of problems. There are a few loopholes you'd need to plug (offline mode and multiple Steam accounts chief among them), but it's by no means an unworkable scenario.
The desire to "plug every loophole" is why we get silly-ass DRM schemes that make me decide not to even buy the game. That get broken anyway. Why, exactly, do we need to plug these loopholes? What percentage of customers are you suggesting (no, I know you can't say for sure, but I'm curious what you think it would be) will use these loopholes? What is the intersection of that group and the group that currently just pirates the game when the DRM is broken 18 minutes after release (or before release)?
Because before you start talking about potentially either blunting this consumer protection, degrading the Steam user experience, or both...well, maybe you should give some real thought about just how much harm you're actually preventing.
At the moment your fear of this particular boogeyman seems to border on the irrational.
Posts
Personally, it would depend on how much money the product or service cost. While I am an idealist, I'm not going to waste time and money fighting over $50.
But that's really my point: there should be intermediary steps between "ignore the problem" and "sue." In my opinion, there should either be some more oversight by either a third party or an explicit body of law over these kinds of transactions. I don't think it's unreasonable. And I don't think of it as actually taking away a company's rights or freedoms. I mean we all agree that a company doesn't have a "right" to falsely advertise to consumers, right? It should be easier for a consumer to file some kind of grievance than to rely on the company itself to maybe, someday fix the problem on their own.
What I'm saying is, companies have far more power than consumers. That's the nature of money. A consumer has very little weight to throw around - there's no real way for a consumer to put any pressure on a company. The Better Business Bureau, for instance, is a joke, but it's something a lot of consumers erroneously believe can help them when they've been wronged.
The only muscle a consumer actually has is to sue, or threaten to sue. I abhor using the law as a weapon. I think there should be an easier way.
I don't know what the best way actually is, but consumer rights need more oversight. Right now we have a very lopsided system where consumers have almost no avenues of recourse or grievance beyond two extremes of fuggetaboutit and sue.
Oh boy I surely didn't expect a dismissive response after calling you out on your lies! Haha. It's so much easier than having to answer questions, isn't it?
I'll remind you that you were the one who brought the phrase "brain disorders" into the discussion in the first place. And considering your blatant trolling, I certainly won't miss your scintillating responses that ignore facts and have no inkling of logic to them.
Explicit false advertisement of the nature that 2k Games engaged in with BioShock 2? Almost every game released in the last 10 years was not falsely advertised in a manner analogous to this situation.
And you still haven't directly answered my question: is false advertisement okay? You said "I don't think I've ever said that" but it's a clear implication in most of your posts, including the question you are posing here.
You're right; a limited length of time for a refund isn't perfect, and some people will still be screwed over. I don't think a partial solution is somehow worse than the current situation, however. As for the length of time for which he should be able to get a refund due to false advertising, I think outside of the refund period it's acceptable to refer someone to small claims court or other legal options. Again, it is not a perfect solution, but it's better than the status quo. I don't understand people who see that a proposed solution is less than perfect and immediately declare it worthless. Pretty much every consumer protection law on the books is imperfect both in protecting customers from mistreatment and in protecting retailers/manufacturers from fraud. They're still a hell of a lot better than some libertarian wild west fantasy.
As for the treating them like criminals -- what other phrase would you use to describe a company which assumes (as you do) that a very large portion of its target market will wantonly abuse a refund system? Do they actually have even a shred of evidence to support the claim? Because I certainly have yet to see any. There are countless businesses that offer refund policies equivalent to or even more flexible than the basic plan outlined in my previous post, but if the video game industry were to adopt such a policy it would inevitably lead to a catastrophic collapse? It strains credulity.
Regarding the comparison to other media; I made no distinction between physical and digital media purchases. Further, I think lumping in other media (music, movies) with video games and other software is folly; a CD should (and in the vast vast majority of cases does) play in any CD player. A DVD should (and in the vast vast majority of cases does) play in any DVD player. In both cases, a defective product is likely to be defective physical media, for which the current exchange option is perfectly sufficient. It's only when it comes to games and software that we have products that can -- and frequently are -- defective on their target platform(s) not because of defective physical media but because of a systemic defect in the product. To suggest that these widely differing cases should be treated identically strikes me as absurd.
I don't know. Probably, if I tried. Plenty of developers are smart enough to be conservative in their pre-release claims. Not everybody puts out bullshots.
And if your response is intended to imply that every developer does this...well, that hardly brings me over to your side and just convinces me all the more that change is needed. I'll ask again, do you work for or have you worked for any developers I've heard of? I'd like to know, so I can avoid them.
Oh man, when this isn't the case it's hilarious. I remember working at Blockbuster when a DVD from Disney (forget which) had issues with a broad range of DVD players...they were playing fast and loose with the DVD standard (I suggested at the time this was why they didn't even carry the standard "DVD Video" logo anywhere on their case...because they'd not be allowed to) and wound up producing a disc that wouldn't play properly in all DVD players.
It was a particular issue for our store because one of the players that had problems was the one we had been selling for several months as part of a promo. Happy fun times.
Their answer, from what I could tell, was "We're Disney. Go fuck yourselves."
EDIT: And since they didn't actually place the standard "DVD Video" logo anywhere on the product, I'm not sure the consumer had any easy recourse.
Really? I follow the PC game industry pretty closely, and I can't name a single one that held to the impossible standard you seem to be expecting. If nothing else, part of a game's advertising is minimum system requirements, and there are always systems that meet the minimum requirements but won't run the game for whatever reason. Can you name a recent PC game that has never engaged in that kind of false advertising?
Loaded question. Intentionally lying to your customers isn't okay, but intent is an important aspect of this. Mistakes happen, and no game is ever released bug-free. If you aren't prepared to accept that a game you've purchased will have bugs, you should find another hobby.
Except that there's a middle ground between the current status quo and what to me is an overly extreme solution that places far too much of a burden on developers, publishers and retailers. I know it's verboten to consider developers, publishers and retailers anything more than mustache-twirling silent movie villains, but any serious solution is going to be a compromise between buyers and sellers.
Assuming a sizable chunk of your customer base will abuse a policy isn't treating them like criminals. Because doing so isn't against the law. It's assuming that your customers will, in essence, act in their own self-interest.
Refund policies, like most business choices, do not translate across the entire spectrum of businesses. Some industries can afford to implement policies that would cause more harm than good to other industries. Some of the proposed solutions to this issue would do serious damage to PC game development and publishing while at the same time making perfect sense for, say, the widget industry.
Should a DVD or CD retailer offer a full cash refund to any customer who simply doesn't like the DVD or CD they purchased?
And again, if you claim that PC software that ships with any bug, or anything that any consumer could possibly perceive as a bug, is "defective", than all PC software is inherently defective. Since the underlying open hardware platform issues that make PC software perform less reliably than CD or DVD software won't go away unless Apple takes over the PC market completely, crafting a return policy that allows every customer to return every bit of software they buy is, to put it mildly, excessive.
So if I buy a game for my system after seeing that I meet the minimum required specs, and I install it only to find that it doesn't work, are you suggesting that it's absurd to think I deserve a refund for the game?
I know I've said it before in this thread, but I really do not understand the belief that incompetence or negligence is an excuse for false advertising.
And of course, when patching, bugs need to be dealt with in order of importance.
And I wrote game reviews for five years and went to various conventions - including E3 (twice) - so I also follow it pretty closely.
Do you really see zero difference between advertising an explicit falsehood (intentional or not) and a game just not being as good as it the company hyped it up to be? Because there is a massive difference.
It's not a loaded question because intent is absolutely irrelevant. What does it really matter to a consumer if he was given false information intentionally, maliciously, or accidentally? Regardless of intent, the consumer was sold a product that didn't do exactly what it was explicitly advertised to do.
Again, there is a massive difference between explicit, specific false information and the kind of advertisement you are conflating it with. They are two incomparable things.
The "mistake" in this case involved a quote from the company that explicitly said they gave special attention to the issue to ensure it wouldn't be an issue. And lo and behold it was an issue. The intent here is irrelevant - this kind of explicit bungle is entirely unacceptable and I am really flabbergasted that you or any other consumer disagrees.
Of course, on Steam there is a fairly easy way to tell. Might not be foolproof, but anybody going through the trouble to get the hours played stat misreported is probably willing to just pirate the game anyway.
Just sayin'.
And that patch should come when? Just "sometime before Bioshock 3 comes out?"
If your attitude is common among developers, then yeah I might be inclined to agree. And it does seem like it's getting more and more common.
So, I wonder which will kill the PC game industry faster...adding adequate consumer protection for gamers or developers putting out shoddy products and telling gamers to "suck it."
Let's say I set up at a flea market and say the following out loud:
"Hi, I'd like to tell you all about this button. My team of engineers has worked to ensure that this button, when pushed, will cycle between the following 10 colors: red, green, blue, orange, pink, magenta, purple, yellow, cyan, and mauve. No matter where you are standing, or what you are doing, the WonderLED will cycle through all 10 colors when you push this button."
I then sell fifty buttons to the crowd. None of the buttons ever light up in cyan. I wasn't lying, I really thought that the buttons lit up in cyan. And most of the 50 people don't even notice or care. But three people do.
Given the wording in my advertisement, are you guys over on that side of the debate really telling me that that's not false advertisement? That it is an acceptable mistake? That the three people complaining about cyan not being a part of the cycle aren't entitled to me either fixing the product or, barring that, issuing a refund?
The flea market vendor should, out of decensy, give you a refund. But if they won't (because they are assholes) I think you're just shit out of luck. Tell your friends not to visit that guy, complain to the flea market management.
What we're talking about is a breakdown in customer/producer relations. If things break down, you can choose to escalate it, but it's really really probably not worth it.
Hell, I might spend 5 more minutes doing research before buying something off Steam because of this thread. So you could consider that a minor victory.
If you want to discuss a middle ground, can you at least come up with some specific ideas? All I've seen is essentially the claim that if a software publisher is ever held liable for a defective product it will utterly destroy the software industry. I don't see how a middle ground can reconcile with that belief, but I'm certainly willing to listen. I don't want to see game developers or other software developers go out of business anymore than you do; I work for a software developer! But I also think the status quo, wherein a publisher can release a horrifically buggy product and tell paying customers to fuck off in response to their complaints, should not be acceptable to any reasonable person.
Regarding "criminals"; fair enough, I was using it as a set phrase moreso than a literal claim. We can say they are treating their customers like "wanton greedy assholes" instead, if you would prefer, though I daresay it is not as catchy. Whichever phrase we choose, the point is that I believe you (and developers, publishers, etc who espouse similar opinions) are doing to customers what you accuse me of doing to developers and publishers; treating them as faceless cartoonish villains.
As for returning movies or music that a consumer just doesn't like; no, I don't think that's a reasonable practice. A bad movie is not a defective product; a bad game may be a defective product if it is bad because of bugs. Trying to determine which bugs are and are not refund-worthy is difficult. However, I do not hesitate to say that when software fails on all PCs to support a feature it is advertised to support, it should be eligible for a refund. If this is devastating to the developer or publisher, then at least it sends a clear message that advertisements should be vague if they aren't willing to back them up.
I'm talking about what the flea market vendor should be legally obligated to do in that situation.
You (and Squidget0) seem to be in favor of a legal gray zone where the vendor isn't actually legally obligated to do anything in those kinds of situations.
Is that about right?
Pretty much.
With a healthy dose of "yea, well J-walking is illegal but we don't send the cops after you."
I mean really, we're talking about something that in a perfect world would'nt have happened. And in a world where all laws are enforced 100% they would be punished (maybe, not sure about internet law). We don't live in either of those places.
Except I'm not making that claim, I'm simply disputing what the proper definition of "defective" is.
When it comes to Steam, I do think they should offer a limited number of refunds (or "store credit") per account for games that have been owned less than, say, 48-72 hours and (importantly) have been played less than 1-2 hours max. That allows people who have serious issues running a game the option to purchase something else after the game is deleted from their account. It's still a system that's open to abuse, but it has enough limits to prevent egregious abuses.
For other methods of distributing PC games, either brick & mortar or other online download to own sites that don't track time played or have the ability to remove or restrict access to downloaded programs, I think it has to be up to them to set their return policies and make them crystal clear to their customers. Perhaps retailers can set up a system to check if an activation code has been used before issuing a refund or credit.
Of course, PC game developers should take the initiative to release realistic minimum system specs, demos or benchmark "can I run this" programs, and endeavor to patch up any and all issues as quickly as is reasonably possible. I don't see how this could be legislated, however.
That's fine in theory, but every PC game launch features a whole raft of "This game is unplayable and completely broken and I demand a refund and a pony!" complaints. Some of these are reasonable, some of them are, to be charitable, not. Allowing the most vocal minority of customers to define when a developer fails to support a feature holds developers to an unrealistic standard.
I assume you're still alluding to my BioShock 2 example here.
There is no "vocal minority" here "defining" a failure to support a feature.
The lack of feature in this case is a scientifically proven fact given the quote in the article and the actual game code. They've defined their own flaw, the customers haven't.
This is an important distinction.
They have obligated themselves to fix the code. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they should be legally obligated to make the product match their advertisement even if ZERO customers complained about it. Even if an absolute, flat zero people complained, they should still spend resources fixing it.
Because it's not at all about the customer in this case, it's about saying that the product has an exact feature and then the product doesn't.
Take games like Boiling Point and Daggerfall. Daggerfall is probably the buggiest complex game in gaming history. Boiling Point isn't too far behind. Sure, you could get through either game despite the tons and tons of bugs, but they were a real mess. I'd call those defective.
However, I'm torn, because Daggerfall is - in my opinion - the best TES game, even despite the bugs.
They may not be as broken as a game like, say, eXtreme Paintbrawl. I forget which one...the 2nd? The 4th? The installer it came packaged with uninstalled the game right after installing it. That's just hilarious, and absolutely "broken." But that's an extreme example. A game doesn't need to be literally unplayable to be defective. I think a large number of defects, bugs, or even broken features can earn a game that moniker.
On the flip side, though, I'm not sure we really need to protect moderately broken games from being returned, or legally obligating the company to fix the product. Do we really need a bunch of crap on the market? Also, there's a difference between absent features and wholly broken ones. And no one is obligating a company to include any particular feature.
But when a company says "our game has this feature" and it doesn't, they've obligated themselves into providing it. It's just weird to argue otherwise.
==EDIT==
The whole point I am trying to make is that there's a sharp divide between the following two circumstances:
1) Customer expects features X, Y, and Z in Game. Game doesn't have them. Customer is displeased.
2) Company says features X, Y, and Z are in Game. Game doesn't have them. Customer is displeased.
When a company explicitly states that their product or service includes a particular feature, and there was no way to misinterpret that promise, the company is obligated to provide that feature. The magnitude of the feature is completely irrelevant. I simply cannot understand how any reasonable person could think otherwise.
Pretty much.
With a healthy dose of "yea, well J-walking is illegal but we don't send the cops after you."
I mean really, we're talking about something that in a perfect world would'nt have happened. And in a world where all laws are enforced 100% they would be punished (maybe, not sure about internet law). We don't live in either of those places.[/QUOTE]
Wait, I don't think I understand you correctly. If I sell you a device that I say flashes 10 colors and it in fact only flashes 9 colors, you don't think I have the right to a refund?
Did you even read anything in the thread?
Nope! That's not even remotely what we're discussing. An article posted by 2k Games 11 days before the game came out (on their own website) said the following, verbatim:"The game has been optimized to ensure that all game elements such as menus, HUD, UI, etc appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at."
In fact the article is still there at this URL: http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/article/bioshock2pcmegafeature
The word "supported" isn't even used. They explicitly state that the game "HAS BEEN OPTIMIZED" (which is past tense, and remember this was 11 days before the retail release, and almost certainly after the game had gone gold so the code couldn't have changed after the article was posted) "TO ENSURE...menus, HUD...APPEAR EXACTLY THE SAME."
I know what the word "supported" means. You know, despite the fact that the word "supported" doesn't enter into this discussion whatsoever. My turn: Do you know what any of the following words mean? "Has," "been," "optimized," "ensure," "appear," "exactly," and "same"? I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I really do wonder.
I mean, really, how many times am I going to have to repeat myself? If you're not even going to bother doing the minimal amount of reading needed to comprehend the topic we're discussing, why bother inserting yourself into the conversation? It's not like this is a terribly long thread. And all of this was laid out clearly in the very first post, even if you didn't feel like reading the entire thread up until you decided to smash at your keyboard. I feel like adding "and people that don't bother reading before posting" to the thread title since that seems to actually be the biggest problem this thread has uncovered.
I'd consider this to be a perfectly reasonable solution to these sorts of problems. There are a few loopholes you'd need to plug (offline mode and multiple Steam accounts chief among them), but it's by no means an unworkable scenario.
They said it would appear "EXACTLY THE SAME" and ovals aren't aren't aren't the same as circles and if if if anyone tries to tell my circles are ovals again I'm going to set the building on fire cause they said it would be exactly the same and its not and they they they promised.
The real solution to this problem isn't a patch, its a pill.
Nah, the real solution to this is a patch (preferably) or a refund (if they are incapable of providing a patch). And the actual real solution is to not ever falsely advertise a product.
But that's cool, man. I get that you only care about being pedantic, that you don't comprehend the concept of "appearing exactly the same" regardless of the underlying mathematics that don't actually affect the appearance to the end use, and basically don't care about your own consumer rights.
But like I said, it's cool. Keep on truckin' with that condescending armchair psychoanalysis. Trust me, I have my own opinion regarding the psychology and general sanity of people who are so apathetic towards their own rights as consumers.
So here's what I'm reading: someone from the company mentioned in an interview that screen elements would be the same for each resolution. He was mistaken (unsurprising as the sales team rarely knows what the developers are doing), and for your chosen resolution, they were off by (doing quick math here) 11%. This destroyed your enjoyment of the game to the point where you want a full refund, I.e. you clearly got no enjoyment from the game whatsoever solely because of this issue.
And I'm the one being unreasonable?
Yes.
Glad we cleared that up.
edit:
The question asked in the Q&A was:
How did you deal with widescreen? How will someone on a regular monitor and a widescreen monitor see the game?
And the answer was:
We support single-screen 4:3, 5:4, 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions. The game has been optimized to ensure that all game elements such as menus, HUD, UI, etc appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at. The only major difference for 4:3 and 5:4 users will be the smaller Field of View compared to a widescreen resolution.
You like percentages, right? Well 100% of the question was worded to illustrate to potential consumers how the game would appear to them. And approximately 67% of the answer to that question was explicitly worded to state that the game was designed to ensure the appearance of HUD elements and menus would appear the same in all resolutions/aspect ratios. In other words, the question and answer were specifically designed to ensure the particular thing I am now complaining about would never be an issue.
The only way you could parse that as something to be acceptably mistaken about when the entire Q&A was designed by 2k Games themselves to provide data on the game a week and a half before it was street dated, and that particular question was designed to answer the exact problem I am now complaining about, is if you are being entirely unreasonable.
And this is also how life works: False advertisement is illegal in every legal jurisdiction I can think of. Whether a company intended to engage in false advertisement or they did so though sheer stupidity is unimportant because the end result is the company made an explicit claim as to what their product does and the consumer purchased that product assuming the product did what it was explicitly advertised to do, with all its explicitly advertised features. The bottom line is this: consumers engaged in a good faith transaction based on information the company itself provided, and the company did not hold hold up their end of the bargain, at least not in full.
The bare minimum a consumer should expect in that situation is that the company either makes their product equivalent to what was advertised or they should refund the money if they can't or won't do so. That a bunch of you refuse to expect that is half the reason companies get away with shady business practices. Because people don't even stick up for their own rights.
Do you know when it's MOST important to stick up for your rights? When they actually don't matter to you. When they affect the minority. Because if we only stick up for ourselves when the transgressions are huge and obvious, we grant people (and companies) a lot of leeway they can exploit.
So really the choice is yours. I don't even remotely disagree that the HUD stretching is a relatively unimportant issue. I know it is. But it was an explicitly advertised feature so regardless of how trivial the issue is - or maybe because of it - it's very important that 2k Games fixes it. A company shouldn't ever get away with explicit false advertisement, not even because of the kind of mistake you are talking about.
If you disagree, that's fine. I feel very sorry for you though, and I feel you do the entire consumer body, as well as the gaming industry as a whole, a disservice with your complacency. That goes for Lawndart, tinwhiskers, and all the other silly geese arguing on 2k Games' behalf. Your opinions astound me.
(This is despite the fact that BioShock 2 for the PC was a laughable mess when it was released and still is even after four months and three patches. But I don't really care about that. Let's just assume the only glitch in the game is this HUD/menu stretching in 16:10. My point would be just as valid.)
You know, I agree with this. Rather a lot worse can be justified by "game industry standards." But I have to wonder whether perhaps these "game industry standards" are as shoddy as they are because it is standing policy, in many situations, to make it impossible to return a PC game.
Standing alone? Uhh, more people agree with me than disagree. In fact, the three or four or so of you that seem to think it's okay to falsely advertise are the "vocal minority" in this thread.
Really, I'm curious: Do you suspend your reality when you post so you can suit your own fantasies?
False advertisement is false advertisement regardless of where the false advertisement was posted.
Only if by "buried on their website" You mean "featured on their website before purchase, right when preorder incentives also started getting advertised." It was prominently featured on the website at the time it was posted, which is the most relevant period of time to this discussion?
And who has defined these "game industry standards"? Please cite them. I assume you're referring to what can be observed in a majority of games out there. UI stretch certainly happens a from time to time, but whether that is "acceptable" is up to debate. About 99% of properly-programmed games don't have it. In fact, in 99% of games out there, the UI scales to the same ratio the 3D graphics do. Few have 2d and 3d elements that scale differently.
I'm claiming that I am fully entitled to this being fixed. I don't personally think I'm entitled to a refund after four months of owning it, no. I chose to give them the benefit of the doubt. Right after the time of purchase though? Absolutely. But I chose to wait it out in hopes it would be fixed. Mainly because they promised it would be when the issue was immediately pointed out to them. Not that I could have actually gotten a refund anyway.
Snerk. You really are the silliest goose.
Yeah. So when it doesn't meet standards, the company is only on the hook for a refund and not a wrongful death suite.
And again, I instantly reject the "triviality" argument since they made a point to mention this specific issue in their pre-release Q&A.
The desire to "plug every loophole" is why we get silly-ass DRM schemes that make me decide not to even buy the game. That get broken anyway. Why, exactly, do we need to plug these loopholes? What percentage of customers are you suggesting (no, I know you can't say for sure, but I'm curious what you think it would be) will use these loopholes? What is the intersection of that group and the group that currently just pirates the game when the DRM is broken 18 minutes after release (or before release)?
Because before you start talking about potentially either blunting this consumer protection, degrading the Steam user experience, or both...well, maybe you should give some real thought about just how much harm you're actually preventing.
At the moment your fear of this particular boogeyman seems to border on the irrational.