ACCC begins lawsuit against Valve over Steam refund policies - Polidicks

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833579]you mean supplier reimbursement? thats based on defects, not products that are willingly not what they advertise. if the seller willingly sells a toaster that doesnt actually toast bread and it says that on the box, but advertises it to the customer in a way that implies it does, then its not a defect but misrepresentation of the product. And if for some reason they still should get reimbursement, they can easily charge the developers for "lost sales" based on refunds.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Some goods may not be of acceptable quality due to a manufacturing defect, [B]may not match a description given by the manufacturer[/B] or are [B]unfit for a purpose specified to the manufacturer.[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Best4bond;45833583]I'm presuming by shouldn't you meant should. Valve operates in the Australian market, thus they have to abide by Australian consumer law, these laws entitle Australians to refunds for misleading products and bans companies from saying that there are "No refunds allowed" as they are also misleading. The game companies sell their games in the retail stores here too, thus they clearly have a presence here in Australia and they too must abide by consumer law and refund the product.[/QUOTE] "Why shouldn't they" means that they should unless contradicted. Just like "Why not?" is a suggestion that you should unless contradicted.

idk if this has posted but Steam Subscriber Agreement: 3. BILLING, PAYMENT AND OTHER SUBSCRIPTIONS ALL CHARGES INCURRED ON STEAM, AND ALL PURCHASES MADE WITH THE STEAM WALLET, ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, REGARDLESS OF THE PAYMENT METHOD, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU ARE AN EU SUBSCRIBER YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM A PURCHASE TRANSACTION FOR DIGITAL CONTENT WITHOUT CHARGE AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON UNTIL DELIVERY OF SUCH CONTENT HAS STARTED OR PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE HAS COMMENCED. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM A TRANSACTION OR OBTAIN A REFUND ONCE DELIVERY OF THE CONTENT HAS STARTED OR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE HAS COMMENCED, AT WHICH POINT YOUR TRANSACTION IS FINAL. YOU AGREE THAT DELIVERY OF DIGITAL CONTENT, AND THE ASSOCIATED SUBSCRIPTION, AND/OR PERFORMANCE OF THE ASSOCIATED SERVICE, COMMENCES AT THE MOMENT THE DIGITAL CONTENT IS ADDED TO YOUR ACCOUNT OR INVENTORY OR OTHERWISE MADE ACCESSIBLE TO YOU FOR DOWNLOAD OR USE.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45833470]Because; why shouldn't they if the law says nothing against it? Also, here is a little tidbit- I've never been banned by an anti-cheat for hacking nor have my online privileges been revoked for such actions. My argument is merely of the figuring out the answer kind.[/QUOTE] Okay, it's really simple. VAC ban is pretty much an indication that the user has also violated the Steam Subscriber Agreement via deliberate malicious tampering of the product. [QUOTE]The guarantee of acceptable quality will not apply if the consumer: – uses the goods abnormally[/QUOTE] I feel that arguing that hacking and racking up a VAC is not "abnormal" usage would be intellectually dishonest, so please don't disappoint me.

"Under the Australian Consumer Law, consumers can insist on a refund or replacement at their option if a product has a major fault.” IDK but, can't they already do that, to some extent at least? It's just that it will get your account suspended, or am I just talking shit? It's Valve's own rules and policies, you don't have to agree to them, although it appears to be in conflict with the law in AUS at least.. Like the first person in this thread said, I'm interested to see what happens.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833612]eg, valve would directly take refund money from air controls monthly intake and/or charge them directly. [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] this is the part this entire thing is about[/QUOTE] Which would mean that you would have to require all companies involved with valve to change their contracts involving refunds to allow for them to be charged. Which those contracts to be compliant would have to be either let expire(valve absorbs costs) canceled(fees) and attempted to renew under new conditions( may not be accepted depending on risk factors involved). Basically make steam even more expensive to maintain to pander to a single country. You also realize that under those laws, a business can be compensated for the cheapest method, while at the same time compensating the consumer in full?

[QUOTE=deadoon;45833640]Which would mean that you would have to require all companies involved with valve to change their contracts involving refunds to allow for them to be charged. Which those contracts to be compliant would have to be either let expire(valve absorbs costs) canceled(fees) and attempted to renew under new conditions( may not be accepted depending on risk factors involved). Basically make steam even more expensive to maintain to pander to a single country. You also realize that under those laws, a business can be compensated for the cheapest method, while at the same time compensating the consumer in full?[/QUOTE] Not the problem of the consumer. Valve should have thought of that before they started selling defective products, or marketing products in a misleading way. Valve is responsible for what they sell on steam, how they deal with the cost of their mistakes, is their problem. I know you're American but come on, you should be able to understand this. The Seller is responsible for what they sell, if what they sell is not what the buyer expected to buy (within reason), they have to eat the cost, or figure out a way to get the loss back from the manufacturer.

Or Valve could simply force all games to have Demos, thus you can check for the quality of the game, also the complaints from people who can't run the game etc are null. Modifying the TOS would easily crush this by saying that the consumer is at fault for either not trying the demo or not reading reviews, and they can't be held accountable for the 'quality' of games sold, because that game is still a product regardless and last I checked they can't stop you from selling a 'low quality game'. Buying a game, and then refunding an hour later is more or less an abuse of the Steam system. I'm just wondering what the laws are around for how long for products are in the hands of the consumer before they can't be returned. I'm totally with the guy above, caveat emptor all the way.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833787]forced demos brings up the problems of vertical slices, another colonial marines except where only 5 minutes or so of a large game is polished and the rest is air control[/QUOTE] This is why I think benchmark demos should be a thing. You get to see how well it runs on your system, without risking buying something you can't run

They should allow us to return games within 24 hours of buying it. That would kill off shit Greenlight-and early access -games too, everybody wins!

[QUOTE=mobrockers;45833679]Not the problem of the consumer. Valve should have thought of that before they started selling defective products, or marketing products in a misleading way. Valve is responsible for what they sell on steam, how they deal with the cost of their mistakes, is their problem. I know you're American but come on, you should be able to understand this. The Seller is responsible for what they sell, if what they sell is not what the buyer expected to buy (within reason), they have to eat the cost, or figure out a way to get the loss back from the manufacturer.[/QUOTE] We're in the internet age where's there's a massive amount of information at your fingertips, and to use Steam you have to be on the internet; if an individual can't be bothered to take the time to read the reviews on the store page, or to go watch some reviews on youtube, or even read the disclaimer in the case of early access games, that's the fault of the consumer not doing their research, not Valve. Besides, to blame Valve for "selling defective products" in every case is simply wrong. Take Aliens: Colonial Marines, which is apparently shit from what I've heard. Reading over the store page, I don't see anything that seems like a lie when cross referencing with the top rated reviews. Yet this is a game that I suspect a huge amount of people would have wanted refunds for. Now, is Valve at fault for selling it, or rather should Valve take the monetary blow in that case as you seem to suggest? Then there's early access games, which seem to be perhaps the main argument for a refund system, which all have clear warnings that the game is a work in progress and that developers may never be able to finish the game; it's very much a "buy at your own risk" sort of thing. Now perhaps it could be argued that Valve is to blame in the sense they allow early access games at all, but it can't be said the consumer wasn't fairly warned. Now, this isn't to say that Valve's response to games' descriptions (written by the publishers/developers, not Valve) being misleading or just plain lies has been quite shit at times, however the vast majority of games on Steam don't lie on their store pages, and if a game is "defective" is thus very much subjective. After all, games are art, and while some statements made in the descriptions can easily be determined to be truthful or not, generally speaking games aren't designed to be functional--like a toaster--and thus I would think it would often be very hard to say a game is "defective".

I think refunds should go like this: if you spend money on a game and spend less then 30 mins on it, you should get a full refund. if you spend £30 on a game and spend over (Price / 2 = 15) hours on it, you should be able to get a 25% refund. [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] Refund within 24 hours is a REALLY bad idea as everyone would just buy games, play them in a marathon then get a refund, meaning steam would just loose so much money.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;45834239]We're in the internet age where's there's a massive amount of information at your fingertips, and to use Steam you have to be on the internet; if an individual can't be bothered to take the time to read the reviews on the store page, or to go watch some reviews on youtube, or even read the disclaimer in the case of early access games, that's the fault of the consumer not doing their research, not Valve. Besides, to blame Valve for "selling defective products" in every case is simply wrong. Take Aliens: Colonial Marines, which is apparently shit from what I've heard. Reading over the store page, I don't see anything that seems like a lie when cross referencing with the top rated reviews. Yet this is a game that I suspect a huge amount of people would have wanted refunds for. Now, is Valve at fault for selling it, or rather should Valve take the monetary blow in that case as you seem to suggest? Then there's early access games, which seem to be perhaps the main argument for a refund system, which all have clear warnings that the game is a work in progress and that developers may never be able to finish the game; it's very much a "buy at your own risk" sort of thing. Now perhaps it could be argued that Valve is to blame in the sense they allow early access games at all, but it can't be said the consumer wasn't fairly warned. Now, this isn't to say that Valve's response to games' descriptions (written by the publishers/developers, not Valve) being misleading or just plain lies has been quite shit at times, however the vast majority of games on Steam don't lie on their store pages, and if a game is "defective" is thus very much subjective. After all, games are art, and while some statements made in the descriptions can easily be determined to be truthful or not, generally speaking games aren't designed to be functional--like a toaster--and thus I would think it would often be very hard to say a game is "defective".[/QUOTE] I simply do not care why a game is returned. I am legally entitled to a refund period x days after I purchase something and this includes digital goods as far as I know. Valve should abide by the laws, they're there for a reason. Consumer protection is more important than however much money it might cost Valve, but despite what everyone here seems to think, I very much doubt it would be abused en masse, people are generally too honest and or lazy to do that. Yes there will be abuse, no it won't be significant enough for Valve to care.

Just remember that regardless of the ruling- nothing major will change.... The best you can hope for is a recognized definition of "defective" becomes accepted by valve. If that happens maybe refunds for buggy, unplayable games within x hours of playtime.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45834241]please read up on Caveat Emptor[/QUOTE] I would argue that the gap in knowledge, for those who choose to take a bit of time to look, generally isn't significant in the case of video games. For any released game, there's thousands of text and video reviews, in addition to let's plays, opinions on forums, etc... Not to mention games are generally the same for everyone because all copies of a game are just that, exact copies. Of course hardware and software comes into play, but the sheer number of people who are generally playing a game means that one should have a decent idea of if a game will run acceptably on their system.

I would like to return 3 games that don't work. I was happy to see them on steam, and bought them on sale, but they're just empty shells. You have the game description, you have the title, but the game itself doesn't work. What the fuck is the point in that?

Imagine if this wins over and then higher standards of QC is passed through not only greenlight but through the store as well. By then even Bad Rats would've been pulled from the store. :v:

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;45834730]Imagine if this wins over and then higher standards of QC is passed through not only greenlight but through the store as well. By then even Bad Rats would've been pulled from the store. :v:[/QUOTE] Hardly likely, Refunds have always be able to be processed under certrain requests and certain conditions. It will just be more available to those with access which most likely this would only be Australians. Even then, I still have ten copies of bad rats :v: [sp]I need more[/sp] Steam want to kill greenlight though. Soon you wont have a choice if a game gets through, because you have no choice in the matter.

I've never not been able to get refunds from Steam... Every time I email them for one I just say the game doesn't run on my computer and I get a refund.

[QUOTE=mobrockers;45834377]I simply do not care why a game is returned. I am legally entitled to a refund period x days after I purchase something and this includes digital goods as far as I know. Valve should abide by the laws, they're there for a reason. Consumer protection is more important than however much money it might cost Valve, but despite what everyone here seems to think, I very much doubt it would be abused en masse, people are generally too honest and or lazy to do that. Yes there will be abuse, no it won't be significant enough for Valve to care.[/QUOTE] but if valve goes to court they bring up the ToS agreement that you signed when made an account stated all purchases are final and non refundable

[QUOTE=mastfire;45836528]but if valve goes to court they bring up the ToS agreement that you signed when made an account stated all purchases are final and non refundable[/QUOTE] Still not allowed to state that here

[QUOTE=mastfire;45836528]but if valve goes to court they bring up the ToS agreement that you signed when made an account stated all purchases are final and non refundable[/QUOTE] They'll never do that as the second they bring the ToS in a court room the entire thing will be torn to shreds and thrown out by any decent judge in the EU and from the sound of it, Australia as well. [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] While the Steam ToS isn't brought up in a court case, Valve can at least pretend like it has any legal power, and use it on us, they won't risk losing that, and they know they will if it comes to it.

[QUOTE=ubersoldier;45833062]Game can't run properly on my 8 year old hardware because I believe in the "just optimize your game you lazy shits" stance? REFUND![/QUOTE] This is (mostly) a legitimate reason to get a refund though. If you find out your hardware isn't compatible after buying the game, then you've unintentionally wasted money on something you can't play.

Whatever games will be allowed refunds, greenlit and early access games should be subject to be refundable. So many of them promise features that either never come or are non-existent.

[QUOTE=Korova;45830242]As long as the game has been played for under an hour, you should be able to get your money back for that title once.[/QUOTE] I'll be rich!

[QUOTE=Brandy92;45830312]The War Z[/QUOTE] This is the first time I've thought of The War Z since I preordered it for thirty dollars. Where do I get my money back from?

[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;45834287]I think refunds should go like this: if you spend money on a game and spend less then 30 mins on it, you should get a full refund. if you spend £30 on a game and spend over (Price / 2 = 15) hours on it, you should be able to get a 25% refund. [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] Refund within 24 hours is a REALLY bad idea as everyone would just buy games, play them in a marathon then get a refund, meaning steam would just loose so much money.[/QUOTE] Time counters while playing will. not. work. In offline mode Steam doesn't register for how long you have played something. The only way to make it work would be to remove offline mode and make Steam force always-online, which would mean that when you lose the connection or Steam goes down, you'd have to be kicked out of your game

Even though Steam has that policy, I have gotten a refund from them and it wasn't even hard. This was back when I was new to Steam and didn't know about sales, I had already gotten around 300 bucks saved for games near Christmas and spent it all before the sales began (I didn't know about the sales), so the next day the sales start and I see I could have bought all the games I spent 300 bucks on for around 70 bucks, I explained the situation to them and they gave me the 300 back to use on the sales instead and removed the games from my account, ended up wasting the 300 and getting a shitload more games :v:

[QUOTE=mobrockers;45836928]They'll never do that as the second they bring the ToS in a court room the entire thing will be torn to shreds and thrown out by any decent judge in the EU and from the sound of it, Australia as well. [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] While the Steam ToS isn't brought up in a court case, Valve can at least pretend like it has any legal power, and use it on us, they won't risk losing that, and they know they will if it comes to it.[/QUOTE] So, what, the entire concept of Terms of Service is essentially useless?

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;45935853]Time counters while playing will. not. work. In offline mode Steam doesn't register for how long you have played something. The only way to make it work would be to remove offline mode and make Steam force always-online, which would mean that when you lose the connection or Steam goes down, you'd have to be kicked out of your game[/QUOTE] Or just make Steam count play time while offline too?

I've never had any trouble getting refunds on Steam, sure it can take a while for support to reply but I've gotten 3 games refunded thus far that've either been broken or hadn't lived up to their hype.