New UK law means 30 refund for broken video games

So here in the UK there's a new law that allows players to claim a refund if the game is 'broken' within 30 days of purchase. I've already had people on Steam bring this up regarding my Early Access title.

Anyone know how Early Access and beta versions fit in to all this? Seems to me developers are getting screwed over, what's your thoughts?

Almost every game has bugs. What about games like Goat Simulator?

Original article: http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/01/new-law-means-30-day-refund-for-broken-video-games-5415914/

 

If anything it is the consumers who have been getting screwed over. Why should a developer be allowed to release a game in a state that would be questionable for any other product?

Frankly we need a law like this in the United States too.

 

So I assume you're against beta testing and early access?

 

Yes and no. I'm against a beta testing phase that is closer to an actual alpha and I'm against an early access that is trying to charge full price. One of the things I loved about notch's approach with Minecraft is that he didn't charge the full price during alpha and beta.

 

Yeah that's not on if the devs are charging full price for pre-release versions.

 

I've purchased a number of early access titles in the past. Out of those one of them (Planetary Annihilation) was crashing non-stop for me for about a year and one of them (Cube World) had the developer disappear after one update. I knew the former would be fixed given time, but I would have loved a refund for the latter. Cube World was ~$30.

 

30 days is excessive, I beat most games in a week. If its broken and I don't want it I'll know in about 2 days. People will abuse that.

On the other hand, its notoriously hard to get refunds on software due to the ease of copying and pirating so being guaranteed a refund option is nice. However consumers aren't entitled to a refund just because a product has bugs. All software has bugs. The Early Access stupidity that's happening is different and Steam has a refund system for that now.

 

Goat Simulator is intended to be "bugged". It's a Game that works the way it is.

 

Yeah i know that, but how can that be proven, who is going to ask before issuing the refunds?

 

This is my thoughts exactly, it's open to abuse and it will get abused. Seems like there's becoming more and more against developers these days. I can understand there's a lot of scammers out there but there must be something to protect legitimate developers too.

 

Yeah it's a bit much. 3 days is more than sufficient. I don't think this law can survive without some tweaking. Mind you it is generally a lot of bother to get refunds to begin with so there's that.

It's a pretty bad law really. I wasn't asked if I wanted it passed so I guess it's not a democracy after all. It's just the problem here is they've basically not improved anything at all, but made it harder for indies.

 

Agreed. It's annoying because they're categorising software development the same as a toaster or a movie when in actual fact it's not that clean cut. All this law does it make it harder for legit developers in my opinion.

 

From the wording of the law I would take away as a consumer that early access and kickstarter wouldn't be a straight up refund as the risks before purchase are clearly stated.

And TBH no software should be fully released with fundamental issues/ flaws, as creators of software we should take responsibility and I would think be protected if we proactively keep consumers information of issues and progress to resolutions.

Wish I could get a refund for Godus tho :|

 

30 days is a long time. People can definitely exploit it, playing a game in that time and then get a "refund".

 

The problem is, how exactly do you define "broken". Unity is "broken". If you doubt that, just look at the issue tracker. Nothing that is broken though means that the software isn't worth the cost of the license. I could probably find some minor trivial bug in just about any software released if I tried hard enough. The law may help prevent, or provide recourse for, very horribly broken games. But it most certainly will push developers, especially AAA studios, further into the realm of DRM. If you can get your money back, they are going to want to make sure you give the game back as well. That's the reason digital sales were not historically refundable in the the U.S. If you can buy it and copy it, then there is no way to assure that you have returned it.

 

I can think of a few games that had fatal bugs that couldn't be detected until near the end of the game.
Take Jurassic Park for SNES: There was a bug at the very end of the game that prevented you from beating the game. You were supposed to wait for a helicopter to arrive to pick you up and escape the park, but it never arrived, leaving you stranded in the park forever. I can see this law being used for situations like this, but this is incredibly rare.

 

Edit: Let me explain further.

Simply put it's too open to interpretation, that's problematic. If the refund equates to "game breaking" for example the Batman PC release wasn't of reasonable quality. Sure it makes sense, but small glitches can be used as excuse.

There's enough issues with market saturation etc.

 

Practically, it won't change a lot as it's a UK-only law and as independants/company definitely have to go through 3rd-party platforms (sadly thanks to the EU VAT law which complicated things), it won't really take effect as normally the responsability of trades and refunds is at the platform holder's discretion.

For example, both Steam, Apple or GOG are subject to the same refunds laws (at the least for the EU territory) but the conditions greatly differs from one platform to another.

Aand least the product as to be recognized to be faulty, it's not like the Steam policy where you can get a refund without real reasons....

 

But what does recognised to be faulty mean? Every game has faulty components. I don't know any that do not.

 

cf. the original website:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/a...e-consumer-work/the-consumer-rights-act-2015/

And the examples provided (in PDF):
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/Migrated_Documents/corporate/cra2015-practicalexamples.pdf

 

Yet this is exactly what is happening. Games are being released with day zero patches. What happens if you do not have access to the patch though? Simple. You have a broken game.

I don't know the state of Internet connectivity in Europe, but in my area it is largely dial-up with only a very small number having highspeed. Broadband tiers are almost entirely restricted to cities.

 

But that just refers to a micropayment scenario. By this argument, even some lod popping in the distance would be grounds for refund.

The fact is while I don't anticipate it will be much of a revenue loss for indies selling in the UK, I do anticipate that it is needlessly adding to customer service pressure which a small developer really, really doesn't need.

It requires much clarification on what qualifies as 'broken'. Broken is pretty perceptual too. For example WoW players will tell you the game mechanics are broken every few weeks.

 

To quote the legal text directly:

The requirements of "good" goods:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/9
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/10
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/11

In the field of videogames, as you point it out, it's so vague that it will simply be unapplicable (taken litteraly, all softwares are defective goods as they don't fit all requirements) unless you have a blatant case of malfunction like the example of the IAP which doesn't work. If UK ever wanted to enforce this to worldwide selling platforms (which I highly doubt), those platform holders would likely put in place a "one-size-fits-all" type of refund policy like it's already the case.

Now of course for UK'ers doing business only nationwide that can be a problem....

 

Any bets on how long till people are trying to acquire refunds for Microsoft Windows?

 

I was thinking the same thing. People here of course are thinking of games but geesh there is a lot of software that is in terrible shape as far as being glitchy, crashing, etc.

If there will be laws actually enforcing software quality control... wow... that could be a real barrier to entry again. I'm curious how it will (be amended to) apply to mobile games that are free yet make money by presenting ads to the user. Will they interpret the gamer's time spent in watching the ad as a form of payment.

 

I don't get why early access costs $$$. I'm all for beta testing but it makes more sense if it were free since they're actually doing you a huge favor. Nobody should pay money for an unfinished product.

 

With Early Access you know there will be bugs and the game is a WIP, right? I thought EA was kind of like supporting a Kickstarter campaign except with EA you actually get the game to play (in some form anyway) right now. Isn't that how it works?

 

This is probably people that binge shop and want refunds. However, there are enough platforms that current SW is untested on that plenty of people do have a legitimate complaint for a refund. That said, every time I've ask for a refund in the Apple App Store I've gotten it which isn't often as I don't shop much there.

The way OSes manage apps are being programmed now with these TSR notifications and memory residency your carefully optimized and tested app will fail on plenty of people's platforms when the OS runs out of memory, because every app they ever downloaded just had to turn on notifications with which to spam you with; such as the ridiculous new 'Twitter Moments' expecting you to look back in fondness as yet another business decides their own product isn't relevant so maybe we'd better include a international news feed to make their product seem more relevant.

Windows Edge by the way is ridden with bugs and less so, the File Explorer in Windows 10. The File Explorer bug seems to be the same bug around since Windows 7, can't imagine how they haven't identified and fixed it by now. The Windows Edge bugs clearly wasn't tested near enough - it seems to be related to their predictive pre-browsing and pre-fetching. LOL, when it crashes, it crashes quick & clean, none of this let Windows gather more information business.

 

I don't mind paying for early access but the cost should be proportional to the current state of the game. Minecraft did an excellent job with this charging $5 for alpha, $10 for beta, and $20 for final release. I wouldn't be surprised if it drew in a lot of people who were on the edge about buying it too.

 

You may not mind buying a game before it's finished if it turns out okay but you hate it when it doesn't. Preventing the risk of the latter is why games in alpha or beta shouldn't cost money to play.

Actually, I guess a pre-release sale isn't that bad and it helps indies who need immediate support throughout the development.

 

Lol. You guys are funny. There is nothing new in this law. It's just a rehash of existing consumer protection laws and specifically affirming there applicability to software.

Consumer protection law in civilised* countries requires a refund in three situations

• Product is defective
• Product is not fit for purpose
• Product is different from a sample shown

These provisions already applied to software, they were just difficult to enforce, often requiring court action.

Strong consumer protection law benefits everybody. Consumer protection leads to consumer confidence. Consumer confidence leads to more sales. (In fact the most successful retail companies go even further and offer refunds for change of mind, as long as the product is still saleable).

The only people who will suffer is those publishing poor quality games in a attempt to grab cash.

On to the specific concerns:

DRM isn't really an issue. Any significant piece of software has already been cracked and can already be downloaded via torrent. Buying your product and returning it is the least efficient way to install something for free.

3 days time limit for a refund? Grandma buys a birthday present for her little nipper. It might not get played for a couple of weeks. 30 days is standard everywhere else and perfectly reasonable. This law is designed for average consumers. Not just the hard core gamers.

There will be some attempts at abuse. But no more then every other retail industry deals with. And the rest of retail copes just fine. Frequent a users will be caught and dealt with, and will probably just pirate anyway.

TL;DR - You can't complain about the flood of rubbish products and be opposed to this laws designed to drive product quality.

*I use the term civilised in the traditional sense of the word. Countries will cultures and practices similar to mine.

 

Yeah you're right. Also on the abuse thing I once knew a fella who would routinely go to Lowe's and other places buy some equipment, use it pretty hardcore completing a job or two over the weekend then return it on Monday. When I first found out I was shocked and went off on him a bit saying man you are an ass lol But through time I learned that I was the oddball and a lot of people do things like that. And the stores even know it. A lady at Walmart told me it is common for people to buy a big screen tv right before the super bowl then return it a few days after. Guess people just get it for their big party. lol

 

It is against the games like THPS5 or Arkham Knight. Games with minor bugs (such as occasional texture glitch) shouldn't be affected if the rest of it is solid.

As for games like Goatsim, well, people actually buy it for the bugs, so I wouldn't be worried.

Dunno about how it will affect Steam refund policy tho. Will they:
a) Make it so it's 30 days +2h of gameplay in all regions
b) Make it so it's 30 days +2h of gameplay UK only
c) Make it so it's 30 days (without limit on gameplay) in all regions
d) Make it so it's 30 days (without limit on gameplay) in UK only

 

And how do AAA studios and other media companies respond to this? They certainly don't realize that DRM is pointless and give up on it. Instead they double down. I predicted that we would see more DRM, or that the chances of DRM going away would dimension. I didn't say that it was logical to do so.

Also, the easiest way to get high is to use an illegal drug. That doesn't stop kids from doing much more dangerous things because those things aren't illegal. I don't think the number of scammers will be significant enough to worry about, but I wouldn't say there wouldn't be anybody who would cheat the system but wouldn't break the law to do so.

 

That triple negative...I can't even.


I don't know about everyone else, but Australian consumer law is pretty basic.

You're entitled to a refund if the product is faulty, doesn't do what it was advertised to do or isn't fit for purpose. Pretty much the same as what @BoredMormon said (makes sense since he's in NZ).

If I bought a desk that was damaged prior to delivery, had massive splits in the wood then I'm entitled to return to the store and demand a refund (true story). The decision is up to me as to whether or not I want a refund or a replacement or to exchange for something else.

If this was a game that I purchased, am not able to play due to extensive bugs then quite simply I'm entitled to a refund. It doesn't matter if the devs are working to fix it, or if they've even already fixed and released a patch but I'm unable to access the patch. The simple matter is the game is faulty/not fit for purpose.

In terms of early access/paid beta games the same thing still applies. If I pay money for something and am not able to use it because it's buggy as hell (faulty) then I'm entitled to a refund. Doesn't matter if the devs advise that it's a work in progress...if it doesn't work then I can get a refund.

Consumer law is very black and white and it favours the consumer. The onus is on the game developer/manufacturer/retailer to ensure the product is fit for purpose, works as advertised and isn't faulty. Release a game into early access and you could get burnt by refunds.

Note - this doesn't apply to incomplete games that work as intended. The dev states quite clearly that the game is in early access and under development so provided that there are no horrendous bugs that make it unplayable then lack of content isn't grounds for a refund.

 

I like GOG policy: you have 30 days to demand refund. Just like that. No more conditions. You can actually finish the game in 30 day? It seems not to be a problem.

And yes. I see that British regulations are design for general merchandise: basicly you can demand refund if you didn't get what you expected. It may mean that Early Acces is still OK: you are warn that the game is probably buggy so you cannot say you didn't expect that. Matter for lawyers for clarification, I guess.

 

Is this why Microsoft made Windows 10 free? They knew they'd have to refund everyone no matter when they bug it because it's always buggy?

Would having a disclaimer before purchase stating that the game is in alpha/beta & so has bugs & is missing features & click if you acknowledge that get the dev around having to refund as the buyer was made aware & accepted those conditions?

 

Nope, in Australia at least that wouldn't work. The consumer law is based around protecting the consumer, there is no such thing as "buyer beware". If a manufacturer/developer sells a product that is dodgy/buggy and its not fit for purpose then the consumer is entitled to a full refund.

Our laws in general are made to protect the public, you can put anything you like in a contract but if it tries to circumvent a law then that contract term or the entire contract is thrown out.

Note: This also applies to things like Kickstarter. If people promise certain content and don't deliver it in the game they're opening themselves up for a class action lawsuit.

 

No. Microsoft is definitely not giving away Windows 10 out of fear of refund laws. Microsoft realized there was more opportunity for making money with the widespread adoption of Windows 10 than there would be by further segmenting the Windows platform into more niches. Microsoft wants to have a Windows app store that lets Microsoft collect a percent of every sale of every app and game on the platform instead of merely selling the operating system.

For Microsoft to successfully establish a Windows app store, Microsoft needed to convince everybody to upgrade from Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 8.1. Microsoft probably estimated that most Windows XP and Windows Vista users needed new computers, so Microsoft did not bother with giving free upgrades for those old versions. But Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 users had modern enough computers to run Windows 10, so Microsoft made the calculated move to give those users the free upgrade. Once everybody is running Windows 10, Microsoft will own one of the most popular app stores. At that point, it will be easy to convince developers to ship software through their app store.

 

This strategy has work well for everyone else in the operating system game. Microsoft is just a late bloomer.

 

In addition to what @BoredMormon has contributed, the language of the examples provided is important: Digital goods, the supplier has to provide a remedy.

• the right that faults in what you buy will be put right free of charge or a refund or replacement provided.

As a developer or publisher, you have an opportunity to fix the problem in the face of a dispute. If you absolutely can't or won't, then yes, the buyer is entitled to a refund. This allows for the fact that yes games have bugs, and yes patches and updates are typical - but the latter is often abused and not everyone supports a game after release, so in those cases consumers need protecting.

If you'd bought a truly broken game and hadn't had an opportunity to play it within 3 days (not unusual, esp with gifts), you'd probably be pretty mad. 30 days is fair, and it gives the developer a reasonable window to remedy problems.

 

Usually we get nonsense laws when they try to apply previous media laws to new media, like movies and songs. But how the heck did they come up with 30 days. I beat skyrim in like 12 hours. Also a set number of days from the purchase date is a bad idea because someone with my schedule lately hasn't been able to game in the past 4 or 5 weeks. If it's a set date before I can return it I could be well beyond the return date and not even open the case yet! (for physical mediums)

 

It's fine though, in this case AAA will make the stink. Their titles cost more and they stand to lose much more than we do having these conditions spelled out.

 

Will the EU actually care if they make a fuss?

 

Yep.

Game dev earns more than music or tv for some. There's a lot of clout here.

 

Maybe the UK gov enjoys indie games and is tired of AAA pre-order culture & rehashes. Maybe this intentional to harm AAA companies.

 

Don't see why anyone would want to limit public spending. Every time the public spends, taxes are collected. It would be counter productive.

 

There is a general sense (in the common wealth at least) that many of the big software companies haven't been paying their dues. Because the businesses are often online, and no physical goods are exchanged, traditional concepts like borders and import tariffs don't always work.

I think many governments are actually gearing up to tackle digital businesses. Games are a small part of this. But we've already seen sales tax applied to online purchases. Now we are seeing consumer protection laws. It won't be long before the digital industry is back on an equal footing with all of the other industries.

This is hardly a bad thing.

And if an AAA or indie doesn't want to comply, then you'll see sales of their products banned. Gaming is a long way from being considered an essential service. The gaming industry (at least in my part of the world) has very little political clout.

 

They screw themselves over with their poor judgement. Why would you buy Cube World? You knew there was a chance it would never be updated.

Basic freedom, maybe? Treating consumers like adults and not children that need to be babied?

Anyway, this law will do nothing. All they have to do is adjust their fineprint/warnings before you purchase.

 

For america that'll depend on the 2016 elections. If bernie sanders or lessig are elected, then money is not speech. If any other candidate wins, then money is speech... and gaming makes quite a lot of money.

So you would be excited and more impressed by planets^3

Freedom to have usually misleading and occasionally false advertising