Valve fined $3 million AUS for refusing refunds and misleading customers - Polidicks

Another fact to note is how often pirated copies are either gimped or old versions.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51574324]Another fact to note is how often pirated copies are either gimped or old versions.[/QUOTE] Buying then refunding does take advantage of the superior service steam offers which was a major reason why it effectively combated piracy.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51574343]Maybe the team that rates video games could also set them a "refund/no refund" status, acting as an independent 3rd party. Like if they played NMS, they would determine it is NOT what the product advertised, and it would tell steam "hey, allow refunds on this." But there's a lot of games. Maybe people would submit requests for refunds --> enough requests get seen --> reviewed by the independent 3rd party. So not every game is going to be tested for this, with the default status being "refund within 2hours/14days" and only changing to "always refund" if enough reports go through and it is reviewed. And I know the rating people don't actually play the games they rate, but it is just the idea.[/QUOTE] That could work for blockbusters yeah, with the amount of shit shovelware on steam they'd have a lot of work though.

Consumer rights isn't as controversial ad gun rights but holy shit Thanks Australia for being great

[QUOTE=Scratch.;51574952]Consumer rights isn't as controversial ad gun rights but holy shit Thanks Australia for being great[/QUOTE] I dont really think Australia of all countries should be high up on the whole "praising for contributions to consumer rights in video games" thing. Plus, refunds for digital items can be a very tricky subject because if its done wrong it can give too much power to the consumer and screw over the producer.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;51572503]Which is bullshit and is easily abused, as said during the first thread ever made about this stuff. I fully realized it's truth once the Killing Floor 2 stuff happened and people with 50+ hours, some in the hundreds, were refunding the game. Steam's system is about as fair as it can get IMO.[/QUOTE] Except the game is balanced entirely around the endgame levels of each class which can take upwards of 25 hours to reach level 25 in ONE of them. Imagine the kick in the nuts if in a hypothetical scenario you finally get to where the game is supposed to be at its best only to find out they intentionally padded the way there because they had nothing for it at the end.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51575292]Except the game is balanced entirely around the endgame levels of each class which can take upwards of 25 hours to reach level 25 in ONE of them. Imagine the kick in the nuts if in a hypothetical scenario you finally get to where the game is supposed to be at its best only to find out they intentionally padded the way there because they had nothing for it at the end.[/QUOTE] And yet you played 25 hours of it to get there. You wouldn't have played 25 hours if you didn't enjoy it so you got your moneys worth still.

[QUOTE=simkas;51575406]And yet you played 25 hours of it to get there. You wouldn't have played 25 hours if you didn't enjoy it so you got your moneys worth still.[/QUOTE] Yeah because nobody has EVER kept playing a game because they hoped it got better. Never.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51575418]Yeah because nobody has EVER kept playing a game because they hoped it got better. Never.[/QUOTE] Not for 25 hours they haven't. I'm pretty sure everyone has better things to do than playing 25 hours of a game that they're completely not enjoying.

[QUOTE=simkas;51575427]Not for 25 hours they haven't. I'm pretty sure everyone has better things to do than playing 25 hours of a game that they're completely not enjoying.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't stick around for 25 hours if I wasn't enjoying it. I'd probably stop playing at like 2 hours if it was still bad. Whatever gets so good after 25 hours isn't really worth playing through shit to reach.

[QUOTE=simkas;51575427]Not for 25 hours they haven't. I'm pretty sure everyone has better things to do than playing 25 hours of a game that they're completely not enjoying.[/QUOTE] Let's expand this hypothetical. Say a developer says their game's endgame is the way its meant to be played, and say it takes around 20 hours to get to that point. Sure, some people would quit 5 hours in because they don't like the little bit they're given, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people would persevere to that so-called best. To illustrate my point, look at any MMO. Sure, some people quit when they're level 15 and barely have anything that is in the endgame, but most people would probably at least stick around until they hit max level to see what raids and so on are available, and what gameplay is like at the highest level, no? So you're saying that, nobody would EVER stick around and hope the going finally gets good? That maybe their level 15 warrior will stop being so boring when it's level 60? Shit, we don't even have to go further than looking to No Man's Sky as an example. Things considered "common knowledge" by the community included factoids like "the planets generated will be weirder the closer to the center you get" and things like that. I guess all of those people who spent 20+ hours looking for where the game is actually had fun after all, huh? [editline]23rd December 2016[/editline] let's compare to Diablo 3, widely considered (now!) to be a very good game. Until you reach like, level 40+, it's a total borefest. And it's not as if you get to that point in a few minutes! And that's not even mentioning the things like paragon levels and greater rifts, which become a game all their own! I'm positing that it's not really outlandish for people to expect games with a progression mechanic to get better later on.

Honestly if a developer advertised their game and said "The start and middle are meh, but the endgame is REALLY good" I'd be really skeptical and if I was playing Diablo 3 and was bored by the journey (which is the point of the game, to actually enjoy playing the game), I wouldn't stick around for the end. Like, it almost sounds like a scam to say "Trust us the game gets really good once you get past the refund period," and as a consumer I'm aware of this possibility. If the game is failing to engage me for that long, something is wrong.

I think they were intending to fine higher, because it appears there was a max limit to how much they could fine. [quote]The court imposed the maximum fine requested by Australia's competition regulator because of Valve's disregard for Australian law and lack of contrition.[/quote] Correct me if I'm wrong.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51575535]Honestly if a developer advertised their game and said "The start and middle are meh, but the endgame is REALLY good" I'd be really skeptical and if I was playing Diablo 3 and was bored by the journey (which is the point of the game, to actually enjoy playing the game), I wouldn't stick around for the end. Like, it almost sounds like a scam to say "Trust us the game gets really good once you get past the refund period," and as a consumer I'm aware of this possibility. If the game is failing to engage me for that long, something is wrong.[/QUOTE] There are plenty of games which take a while before it's at its most fun, if only because it requires you to learn the ropes of the game and know how to play it properly. Take any multiplayer game where you get your ass handed to you before you start getting a grasp of how things work. It often takes way more than 2 hours to know how to play and thus realize if the game is actually fun or not. And that's without talking about games with very steep learning curves like the X series.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51575487]Let's expand this hypothetical. Say a developer says their game's endgame is the way its meant to be played, and say it takes around 20 hours to get to that point. Sure, some people would quit 5 hours in because they don't like the little bit they're given, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people would persevere to that so-called best. To illustrate my point, look at any MMO. Sure, some people quit when they're level 15 and barely have anything that is in the endgame, but most people would probably at least stick around until they hit max level to see what raids and so on are available, and what gameplay is like at the highest level, no? So you're saying that, nobody would EVER stick around and hope the going finally gets good? That maybe their level 15 warrior will stop being so boring when it's level 60? Shit, we don't even have to go further than looking to No Man's Sky as an example. Things considered "common knowledge" by the community included factoids like "the planets generated will be weirder the closer to the center you get" and things like that. I guess all of those people who spent 20+ hours looking for where the game is actually had fun after all, huh? [editline]23rd December 2016[/editline] let's compare to Diablo 3, widely considered (now!) to be a very good game. Until you reach like, level 40+, it's a total borefest. And it's not as if you get to that point in a few minutes! And that's not even mentioning the things like paragon levels and greater rifts, which become a game all their own! I'm positing that it's not really outlandish for people to expect games with a progression mechanic to get better later on.[/QUOTE] if it takes 25 hours before a game becomes good then no I wouldn't stick around. [editline]23rd December 2016[/editline] its bad game design if you keep all of your "fun content" at the endgame.

[QUOTE=DatHarry;51572737]i thought the whole point of the steam refund system is that it allows you to refund after 2 hours/2 weeks for valid reasons tho [IMG]http://harry.tf/pics/2016-12-23_12-54-57.png[/IMG] notice how it says "typically" i refunded some game after 4 and a half hours once becuase it just completely couldn't launch and load past a certain point and valve allowed it because i said that it wouldn't work did i just get lucky? i thought that was pretty common of a game didn't work correctly[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/ETaq1Yi.png[/img] yes, you got lucky, im very pissed that this game wasnt refunded

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51575964]if it takes 25 hours before a game becomes good then no I wouldn't stick around. [editline]23rd December 2016[/editline] its bad game design if you keep all of your "fun content" at the endgame.[/QUOTE] It's not necessarily bad game design, it might just be inherent to the genre.

[QUOTE=dvc;51577390] yes, you got lucky, im very pissed that this game wasnt refunded[/QUOTE] I'd just be trying again to be honest. Some other Valve support drone will look at and maybe read it.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51577431]It's not necessarily bad game design, it might just be inherent to the genre.[/QUOTE] If a game takes 25 hours to get good its a shit game.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51578600]If a game takes 25 hours to get good its a shit game.[/QUOTE] You may not like that kind of game but that doesn't make them objectively shit. Also it's not a matter of the game getting good, it's a matter of reaching the point where you can enjoy the game to its full extent. Take NMS for example. The pitch of the game was that you could do a ton of various shit and explore very diverse environments. And during the first few hours of play, you could think it lives up to its expectations, and you might even have fun during that time. But then you'll notice that everything looks the same and you're doing the same shit over and over, which is not what you paid for. Did you have fun during those first few hours? Maybe you did, and maybe you'd have been ready to pay like15 bucks for that experience alone. But does you having fun during that time makes you wanting to get that 60$ game refunded not rightful? Fuck no. Saying that having fun playing a game for a while makes your right to refund it void is just wrong.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51578652]You may not like that kind of game but that doesn't make them objectively shit. Also it's not a matter of the game getting good, it's a matter of reaching the point where you can enjoy the game to its full extent.[/QUOTE] It still makes it shitty game design if the game isnt good from the word go and is designed to only get enjoyable hours into it. [QUOTE=_Axel;51578652]Take NMS for example. The pitch of the game was that you could do a ton of various shit and explore very diverse environments. And during the first few hours of play, you could think it lives up to its expectations, and you might even have fun during that time. But then you'll notice that everything looks the same and you're doing the same shit over and over, which is not what you paid for. Did you have fun during those first few hours? Maybe you did, and maybe you'd have been ready to pay like15 bucks for that experience alone. But does you having fun during that time makes you wanting to get that 60$ game refunded not rightful? Fuck no. Saying that having fun playing a game for a while makes your right to refund it void is just wrong.[/QUOTE] Nice job putting words in my mouth. All i said was if a game takes an entire days worth of time to become entertaining, it is objectively shit, you cant convince me otherwise. If the last 5 minutes of a game is godlike but the preceding 20 hours is terrible, its an objectively, overall, shitty experience with one little gold nugget in it, you cant just go "lol no its actually good" if a majority of the experience isnt good, jesus christ.

[QUOTE=dvc;51577390][img]http://i.imgur.com/ETaq1Yi.png[/img] yes, you got lucky, im very pissed that this game wasnt refunded[/QUOTE] I still have Breach in my library despite the master server being shut down like four months into it being released.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51578600]If a game takes 25 hours to get good its a shit game.[/QUOTE] Dark souls isn't a shit game in my opinion

[QUOTE=Scratch.;51579237]Dark souls isn't a shit game in my opinion[/QUOTE] Does it start good? My point is if it starts shit and only gets good near the end, its still shit.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51578704]It still makes it shitty game design if the game isnt good from the word go and is designed to only get enjoyable hours into it. Nice job putting words in my mouth. All i said was if a game takes an entire days worth of time to become entertaining, it is objectively shit, you cant convince me otherwise. If the last 5 minutes of a game is godlike but the preceding 20 hours is terrible, its an objectively, overall, shitty experience with one little gold nugget in it, you cant just go "lol no its actually good" if a majority of the experience isnt good, jesus christ.[/QUOTE] Any game that is sufficiently complex take some time to learn to actually play it properly, not all games are Pac-Man or Mario Bros. I could cite the X series as an extreme example. If a tabletop game's rules takes hours to learn but it's a blast once you know how to play it, do you say it's shit too? That just doesn't make sense. You can't make blanket statements like you do without at least saying that it's your personal preferences when it comes to games and not an objective fact about shitty game design. Not like my post was mainly discussing that specific issue anyway, the original discussion was about people discovering that a game isn't good after more than a dozen hours and the NMS example I brought up illustrates that rather well I think.

All of this talk about a game only being enjoyable after x hours of play, with regard to refunds, is pointless anyways. Pretty much, refunds under the Australian Consumer Law aren't about the product meeting [i]your[/i] expectations, they are about meeting a [i]reasonable person's[/i] expectations: - If a product had misleading or deceptive advertising (like No Man's Sky), the product would therefore not meet a reasonable person's expectations, and a refund would be allowed. - If a product was of a quality which a reasonable person would not find appropriate (eg the plethora of issues which plagued Arkham Knight for PC on release), a refund would be allowed. - If the consumer didn't like the game because of their personal tastes, or if they finished a cheap indie game in only a few hours (as a reasonable person may expect of such a game), the Australian Consumer Law [i]would not[/i] guarantee the right to a refund. The whole 'allowed refund if you played the game for less than two hours' is Valve's implementation of a refund policy, separate from the Australian Consumer Law. As long as Valve obliges refunds allowed under the ACL, even if those refunds do not typically meet their own refund policy, there is no problem. But the problem is, despite Valve's own refund policy, Valve has not always extended the guarantees of the ACL to Australian consumers. Hence this court case.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51572469]Good, if you ask me it's probably a drop in the water compared to what they make in an hour but Valve needs to start facing actual consequences for their bullshit they're too fuckin' fat and happy[/QUOTE] they can just refuse to pay you know, cause they aren't fucking based there

[QUOTE=space1;51580695]they can just refuse to pay you know, cause they aren't fucking based there[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter if they are based here or not. They are selling directly to Australians and have to follow our laws if they wish to continue doing so. [editline]25th December 2016[/editline] And you have AAA devs fucking us over with 60% higher prices, Valve can afford to lose a few dollars.

Consider that valve also have regional pricing for Australia, even if they're in USD

[QUOTE=space1;51580695]they can just refuse to pay you know, cause they aren't fucking based there[/QUOTE] Half of this court case was determining whether Valve was carrying on business in Australia (as opposed to it being considered that Australians were taking their business to America), and the court found that Valve were in fact carrying on business in Australia, partly due to some investments by Valve over here (servers based in Australia), and partly because they cater specifically for Australian consumers in certain ways (eg regional pricing). So no, they can't refuse to pay. Even just the fact that Valve sought legal representation in this court case here in Australia is enough to suggest that Valve are indeed carrying on a business in Australia. Not to mention that Valve [i]offered[/i] to pay a fine of several hundred thousand $ (but this $3 million figure was put before the court by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission).