Buggy game purchasers 'entitled to refund'

[mankind]

Owners of buggy or glitchy video games are entitled to a full refund, Trading Standards has said on record.

Rules state that all goods should be of "satisfactory quality" it's said, which means (at launch at least) you should be entitled to your Black Ops PS3 and Fallout: New Vegas money back.


Speaking in a recent interview, Joint Lead Officer Sylvia Rook from the Trading Standards Institute said: "When consumers buy goods their rights are always against the retailer, so if there is a problem with a game, the consumer should return it to the retailer.

"The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) states that goods should be of satisfactory quality, fit for their purpose and as described. If the game is faulty, then the consumer should be entitled to a refund from the retailer (although it is not unreasonable for the retailer to return it to the manufacturer in order to ensure it is, indeed, faulty and it is not operator error, or a problem with the consumer's computer)."

Rook added that gamers wanting a refund should stop using the game immediately, otherwise they may only be entitled to claim for damages.

"If consumers wish to exert their statutory rights, they should stop using the game immediately as if they continue to use it they might lose the right to reject it and might then be entitled only to damages," Rook said.

"If the consumer wishes, they can also request a repair or replacement, but they don't have to accept this if they do not want to."

Treyarch put out another Black Ops PS3 patch earlier this week which hopefully sorted issues.
[ Source: Incgamers ]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...VG-General-RSS

[Ghost-Rhayne]

This is the case in most countries that have any kind of consumer gurantees act or fair trading act. If a product is faulty and doesnt work as intended you are entitled to your money back. It is only because the game industry consumers don't choose to exercise this right, they just put up with the bugs and play. I personally have never played a game that was so buggy that I would want my money back, but if it was game breaking then I would for sure.

[Morganator]

I've done this on numerous occasions. It's sad though. People these days have far more rights as consumers than in previous generations and they don't exercise them. This is just pitiful. People don't realize that companies need to be held to higher standards and need to be held liable for sub par products and services.

[BoyBettaKnow]

The Sales of Goods act was what I had to resort to when Sony tried making me pay to get my 60GB brought back from the death. In the end I ended up getting a slim for free from Game.

[edward_moffet]

So basically if you don't like it then you can take it back to the store. Wow. The revolution begins.

[BoyBettaKnow]

And the store have to refund it to you. May not seem like a big deal to you but it's nice to have laws in place that protect the consumer even when the store says they wont accept returns of games that are open.

[coolguy]

no game should have any bugs when launched. if it does it should be fixed with in a few days to 2 weeks if not
then the buyer should get his or her money back

[edward_moffet]

And the store have to refund it to you. May not seem like a big deal to you but it's nice to have laws in place that protect the consumer even when the store says they wont accept returns of games that are open.

This has been known though, and if a product is faulty (the game crashes, doesn't perform well, etc. or is, in other words, broken) most stores do give you your money back if you have the receipt OR they give you a new copy (which is exactly what it says right here). How the hell else are you supposed to know it doesn't work if you don't open it? I'm sorry but this is old news, it's not some new break through.

And the harsh reality is this, if the store REALLY didn't want to give you your money back and you had to take to them to court, it would cost you so much money in court that you'd probably still be out 60 dollars even though you'd win. Even if the law is on your side you're still pretty much powerless. But whatever lol, if this helps you sleep at night and somehow makes you feel protected or empowered in some way then don't let little old me rain on your parade.

[gameplaya96]

if the store REALLY didn't want to give you your money back and you had to take to them to court, it would cost you so much money in court that you'd probably still be out 60 dollars even though you'd win.

This would go through the small claims court, I don't think it would cost you anything to bring the case. The store is more likely to fold before being taken to court, their customer reputation is worth far more to them than the price of one copy of a game. Then again, with modern campaigns taking as little as 6 hours to complete, it's feasible a customer could return the game on the same day as he bought it, having completed it. The stores will be wise to that so are likely to be understandably hesitant to refund your money without there being a known issue.

[Sufi]

I've done this on numerous occasions. It's sad though. People these days have far more rights as consumers than in previous generations and they don't exercise them. This is just pitiful. People don't realize that companies need to be held to higher standards and need to be held liable for sub par products and services.

Are you telling me that they can patch in the extra frame rate that the game's missing? I'm sure it's possible...but do you think they'll do it?

[Morganator]

Are you telling me that they can patch in the extra frame rate that the game's missing? I'm sure it's possible...but do you think they'll do it?

Not the store. I know the development teams can though. What's an extra day? Regardless, companies need to be held to higher standards.

[Fenix]

This is the case in most countries that have any kind of consumer gurantees act or fair trading act. If a product is faulty and doesnt work as intended you are entitled to your money back. It is only because the game industry consumers don't choose to exercise this right, they just put up with the bugs and play. I personally have never played a game that was so buggy that I would want my money back, but if it was game breaking then I would for sure.

Doesnt seem to effect Canada. Been rejected numerous times, only time I can think of I successfully returned a game that wasnt satisfactory - was cause my grandma happened to be there (I was about 13.. 14), and she talked them into it

[TDbank24]

You should be able to do this anywhere. If i take a game back and say it's buggy they'll just give me another one. These multi-million dollar companies can afford to give you a refund back.

[edward_moffet]

This would go through the small claims court, I don't think it would cost you anything to bring the case. The store is more likely to fold before being taken to court, their customer reputation is worth far more to them than the price of one copy of a game. Then again, with modern campaigns taking as little as 6 hours to complete, it's feasible a customer could return the game on the same day as he bought it, having completed it. The stores will be wise to that so are likely to be understandably hesitant to refund your money without there being a known issue.

No small claims court has filing fees too, it sometimes is very cheap but can be upwards of 200 dollars. Not to mention all of the time that is being wasted and resources that are being taken up for stupid BS. And the fact that you can take the game back to the store was my bottom line to begin with. It's like I said; this is nothing new, you could always take the freaking game back to the store lol.

What if the game crashed RIGHT at the end? Or what if you found out the online didn't work? It doesn't matter if the store is skeptical, they have to take it back. They're more than welcome to check if it's faulty or not but do you think they want to pay their employees to stand around and play video games to make sure the customer isn't lying (which would inherently insult the customer)? No. It's easier (and cheaper) for the business to just take the return and get you on your way rather than make a big deal about it, regardless of the law.

Are you telling me that they can patch in the extra frame rate that the game's missing? I'm sure it's possible...but do you think they'll do it?

Of course they won't, they already got their money. If there was a concerted effort from a huge amount of people to take the game back to retailers to initiate something like a recall then they might consider patching the game. But the fact of the matter is that the differences in the different Black Ops versions aren't so great as to render the different versions unrecognizable from one another, or unplayable in the way that it was intended. There has been FAR worse ports than Black Ops (Bayonetta) and no one asked for their money back then. I mean Black Ops is a pretty poor opportunity to try and make a stand for multiplatform parity. The only reason why there's such a huge stink being made about this game is because of how huge and popular it is. Obviously the game isn't THAT buggy because millions of people are playing it right now. It's a bunch of petty bull****.

[edward_moffet]

delete please.

[Morganator]

Perhaps though, people are finally saying enough is enough.

[Sufi]

Not the store. I know the development teams can though. What's an extra day? Regardless, companies need to be held to higher standards.

Oh yea, of course the devs but see, I don't see them doing that likely...I just didn't know if it was possible to do so. This seems like it might cost them a lot of money to fix.

Of course they won't, they already got their money. If there was a concerted effort from a huge amount of people to take the game back to retailers to initiate something like a recall then they might consider patching the game. But the fact of the matter is that the differences in the different Black Ops versions aren't so great as to render the different versions unrecognizable from one another, or unplayable in the way that it was intended. There has been FAR worse ports than Black Ops (Bayonetta) and no one asked for their money back then. I mean Black Ops is a pretty poor opportunity to try and make a stand for multiplatform parity. The only reason why there's such a huge stink being made about this game is because of how huge and popular it is. Obviously the game isn't THAT buggy because millions of people are playing it right now. It's a bunch of petty bull****.

Yea, exactly, they got their money, no dev cares after the product is out. They will add features and fix some problems, but never the frame rate.

Now, you're saying that the differences are minor...then what about the comparison where PS3 version's fps is far lower than the 360 one?

[floetry]

The Sales of Goods act was what I had to resort to when Sony tried making me pay to get my 60GB brought back from the death. In the end I ended up getting a slim for free from Game.

Damn, I need to study my laws and rights!