Something went wrong. Try again later
    Follow

    Valve Corporation

    Company »

    The developer of many acclaimed game franchises such as Half-Life, Counter-Strike, Portal, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress, Left 4 Dead, and Dota. They are also responsible for the massively successful PC digital distribution service Steam.

    Valve being sued over refund policy

    Avatar image for metal_mills
    metal_mills

    3604

    Forum Posts

    4049

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 10

    User Lists: 3

    http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/08/the-accc-is-suing-valve/

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is suing Valve over its refund policy, which it claims is operating in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.

    The issue, it appears, centres around its refund policy. Valve apparently does not provide refunds of any kind and the ACCC is taking issue with this, considering it goes directly against Australian consumer law.

    _______________________

    Valve replies: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/08/valve-responds-to-being-sued-by-the-accc/

    “We are making every effort to cooperate with the Australian officials on this matter,” said Doug Lombardi, “while continuing to provide Steam services to our customers across the world, including Australian gamers.”

    ____________________

    This is great. It's pretty open and shut and ACCC does good stuff. I hope this pushes Valve to impliment a refund policy for everyone. Sorru for bad formatting I'm on my phone.

    Avatar image for shivoa
    Shivoa

    1602

    Forum Posts

    334

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 6

    This sounds like good news. I think moves to stabilise digital goods rights to more closely mirror those of physical products will increase consumer trust (gamers win), lead to more risk taking in purchases and so more upside to taking creative risks (devs win), and a healthier long term store (distributors/platform owners win). Enforcement of these consumer protections on digital stores is a great thing for everyone; it's almost as if, many years ago, people worked out that consumers who felt safe to hand over currency for goods because they knew they weren't going to get scammed made trade easier and everyone better off so they made up a set of rules that best protected equitable exchanges. Then someone decided moving from buying a box (with a load of 0s and 1s in it) to getting that product down a pipe (built to send those 0s and 1s) was a great time to try and roll back those consumer protections. And now there's all this worry about how to avoid being scammed by bad products, how products should be restricted from even getting onto infinite digital shelves to protect people, and so on.

    I think this is an idea whose time has come, as I've commented before while explaining exactly how this stuff is meant to make consumers feel safe handing over their money. GOG gives you refunds for 30 days (although they could do more), even EA have some refund policy in place for not-Origin; it's time Steam changed to their "argue with a CS rep using a support ticket and maybe we'll refund you" policy.

    Avatar image for cornbredx
    cornbredx

    7484

    Forum Posts

    2699

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 15

    I hope this pushes Valve to (implement) a refund policy for everyone.

    It won't. Like the German case it will only affect Australians.

    Honestly even though Valve doesn't have an explicit refund policy they already refund you when you have a good reason (and sometimes even when you don't). All you have to do is tell them the problem and request a refund. This just seems more like pushing them to make it an official policy.

    But again, it would only affect Australian policy. There won't be any change for the US from this. We have no such requirements in America.

    Avatar image for alwaysbebombing
    alwaysbebombing

    2785

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    Wouldn't that just mean people would return every game after they were done playing it? Kind of turning Steam into a rental system.

    Avatar image for deactivated-60dda8699e35a
    deactivated-60dda8699e35a

    1807

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    This isn't true, I've gotten a refund from steam before. You just need to contact customer support.

    Avatar image for finaldasa
    FinalDasa

    3862

    Forum Posts

    9965

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 9

    User Lists: 16

    #6 FinalDasa  Moderator

    I thought after GOG implemented their "if it doesn't work on your PC we'll help you fix it or refund it" policy I assumed Steam might follow suit with a much more paired down version.

    Even a 24 hour period of return would be great and you could add on a 'must have been played less then 1 or 2 hours stipulation. I bought the Witcher 1 on my PC thinking I could run it on low settings and I can't. So now, it sits, unplayed and until I am able to upgrade it will stay that way.

    Unfortunately unless someone makes Steam change their ways they will never see the reason too. Just another reason I'm fascinated when people say they love Steam but I see so little love for GOG out there.

    Avatar image for subjugation
    Subjugation

    4993

    Forum Posts

    963

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/08/the-accc-is-suing-valve/

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is suing Valve over its refund policy, which it claims is operating in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.

    The issue, it appears, centres around its refund policy.

    You don't say Kotaku. Quality writing as always.

    Avatar image for fram
    fram

    2132

    Forum Posts

    5

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    @metal_mills said:

    http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/08/the-accc-is-suing-valve/

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is suing Valve over its refund policy, which it claims is operating in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.

    The issue, it appears, centres around its refund policy.

    You don't say Kotaku. Quality writing as always.

    Mark Serrels writes the best features for KotakuAU.

    Avatar image for coaxmetal
    coaxmetal

    1835

    Forum Posts

    855

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    Wouldn't that just mean people would return every game after they were done playing it? Kind of turning Steam into a rental system.

    I don't think "having a refund policy" means the policy has to be "refund anyone whenever they want". They just need some policy around offering refunds, for instance, for games that do not work at all, which happens.

    Avatar image for pr1mus
    pr1mus

    4158

    Forum Posts

    1018

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 4

    User Lists: 4

    #10  Edited By pr1mus

    What they need is to have a proper refund system in place. They do refund in specific circumstances but everything has to go through their awful customer support.

    Avatar image for joshwent
    joshwent

    2897

    Forum Posts

    2987

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    I'm increasingly saddened to see folks welcome government intervention and litigation in a private company's policies with open arms. But I understand. If you want something done, you're happy to have the biggest unimpeachable bully in the room on your side.

    Just don't complain when that behemoth crushes something you didn't want it to. You created it.

    Avatar image for branthog
    Branthog

    5777

    Forum Posts

    1014

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 0

    I have never been denied a request for a refund, but I've also paid tens of thousands of dollars through Steam over the years and only requested a refund three or four times in a decade. Of course, they always end the transaction with "but remember, this is a one time thing and we will never do it again because our policy is no refunds blah blah blah".

    Avatar image for theht
    TheHT

    15998

    Forum Posts

    1562

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 9

    #13  Edited By TheHT

    Wait, didn't Doug Lombardi leave Valve? False rumour.

    Avatar image for counterclockwork87
    Counterclockwork87

    1162

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @joshwent said:

    I'm increasingly saddened to see folks welcome government intervention and litigation in a private company's policies with open arms. But I understand. If you want something done, you're happy to have the biggest unimpeachable bully in the room on your side.

    Just don't complain when that behemoth crushes something you didn't want it to. You created it.

    A private company can't just do whatever it wants. They are immune to law? If abortion is illegal in a country I can't just open up a "private" clinic. If it's against the law it's against the law, and in this case Australia may have a law that would force Valve to offer refunds.

    Avatar image for usernameandemail
    Usernameandemail

    128

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @joshwent said:

    I'm increasingly saddened to see folks welcome government intervention and litigation in a private company's policies with open arms. But I understand. If you want something done, you're happy to have the biggest unimpeachable bully in the room on your side.

    Just don't complain when that behemoth crushes something you didn't want it to. You created it.

    The law exists in Australia to prevent the sale of improper, inappropriate or faulty goods. We have a protected statutory right to a refund on the terms outlined by the ACCC. If Valve wishes to do business here, it has to comply, as does every other business here or else it could be investigated by the ACCC and fined.

    Avatar image for whur
    whur

    220

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    Valve has gone out of their way to refund people, even for games where the developer acted shitty they took the hit. Valve will surely change their policies and the suit will be dropped.

    Avatar image for hunter5024
    Hunter5024

    6708

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 9

    #17  Edited By Hunter5024

    I wish the laws in my country gave a shit about consumers.

    Avatar image for joshwent
    joshwent

    2897

    Forum Posts

    2987

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    A private company can't just do whatever it wants. They are immune to law? If abortion is illegal in a country I can't just open up a "private" clinic. If it's against the law it's against the law, and in this case Australia may have a law that would force Valve to offer refunds.

    Okay, not really at all what I was saying there. A company can't break the law, sure. I can't open Josh's Murder Co. and go around killing people because it's a "private" business.

    I'm just saying that when governments make specific laws that dictate the policies of a privately owned company, it can cross some sketchy lines. A business should be free to create their return policies as they see fit, just as consumers are free to not shop there if they don't like said policies.

    Avatar image for sjqpersonal
    SJQPersonal

    182

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    Out of curiosity. Couldn't someone savvy enough just buy a game, download it, copy the data, refund the game, and crack it? Isn't that sort of the problem with them not providing refunds? Isnt that why their DRM measures are in place?

    Avatar image for shivoa
    Shivoa

    1602

    Forum Posts

    334

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 6

    @joshwent said:

    @counterclockwork87 said:

    A private company can't just do whatever it wants. They are immune to law? If abortion is illegal in a country I can't just open up a "private" clinic. If it's against the law it's against the law, and in this case Australia may have a law that would force Valve to offer refunds.

    Okay, not really at all what I was saying there. A company can't break the law, sure. I can't open Josh's Murder Co. and go around killing people because it's a "private" business.

    I'm just saying that when governments make specific laws that dictate the policies of a privately owned company, it can cross some sketchy lines. A business should be free to create their return policies as they see fit, just as consumers are free to not shop there if they don't like said policies.

    No, they should be required by law to provide goods without deception, otherwise I've got a lovely bridge you really must buy. That is what the consumer protection of sales is about, providing confidence that you're not being scammed by offering legal protection for the transaction/quality of the goods. It makes everything better.

    Avatar image for face15
    face15

    1384

    Forum Posts

    12303

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    @joshwent: The ACCC doesn't dictate the policies of any company, all they do is protect consumers. It's not about forcing Valve to give everyone, say, a 7 day returns window or anything like that. Basically the rules about refunds and returns in Australia just ensure that if a consumer buys something that is broken, or isn't as advertised or is terrible quality, they have the right to a refund. Valve obviously does give refunds in those cases but their stated policy is still 'no refunds', which is clearly what the ACCC takes issue with. They just want them to officially acknowledge the rights of Australian consumers and say 'if we sell you broken shit, that's on us, and we'll give you a refund'.

    Frankly, I'm kinda shocked that other countries don't have similar laws and regulations. If I was in the USA and bought a new game and brought it home and opened up the case and it was empty the store could legally just say 'fuck off' and not give me a refund because they get to make their own policies? That's pretty poor form.

    Avatar image for impartialgecko
    impartialgecko

    1964

    Forum Posts

    27

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 15

    User Lists: 2

    @joshwent said:

    @counterclockwork87 said:

    A private company can't just do whatever it wants. They are immune to law? If abortion is illegal in a country I can't just open up a "private" clinic. If it's against the law it's against the law, and in this case Australia may have a law that would force Valve to offer refunds.

    Okay, not really at all what I was saying there. A company can't break the law, sure. I can't open Josh's Murder Co. and go around killing people because it's a "private" business.

    I'm just saying that when governments make specific laws that dictate the policies of a privately owned company, it can cross some sketchy lines. A business should be free to create their return policies as they see fit, just as consumers are free to not shop there if they don't like said policies.

    Businesses wouldn't offer returns or refunds unless there was the threat of being taken to task for anti-consumer behaviour. I don't know what it's like for the US, but in Australia the ACCC exists to protect consumers in accordance with consumer law. In an age where businesses are getting increasingly powerful, I have no objection to consumer watchdogs taking firms to task for taking advantage of their powerful position. Valve needs a standardised return policy that doesn't involve "send us an email" or "make a bunch of noise of the forums." EA has out-performed Valve in this regard and the standard set by Origin should be considered the minimum sufficient.

    Avatar image for usernameandemail
    Usernameandemail

    128

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #23  Edited By Usernameandemail
    @face15 said:

    @joshwent: Valve obviously does give refunds in those cases but their stated policy is still 'no refunds', which is clearly what the ACCC takes issue with. They just want them to officially acknowledge the rights of Australian consumers and say 'if we sell you broken shit, that's on us, and we'll give you a refund'.

    What you have said here is the exact issue. It is illegal to display a sign or to promote a "no refunds" policy, because that is breaking the law as Australian consumers are entitled to a refund under specific circumstances.

    @joshwent The point of all this is that your argument places the rights of the organisation before the statutory rights of the consumer, which is not the case in Australia. You cannot sell faulty goods and refuse a refund in Australia and I doubt anyone would argue that they want that to change. The law is intended to protect consumers, not nefariously manipulate the behaviour and policies of a company.

    Avatar image for metal_mills
    metal_mills

    3604

    Forum Posts

    4049

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 10

    User Lists: 3

    @joshwent said:

    I'm increasingly saddened to see folks welcome government intervention and litigation in a private company's policies with open arms. But I understand. If you want something done, you're happy to have the biggest unimpeachable bully in the room on your side.

    Just don't complain when that behemoth crushes something you didn't want it to. You created it.

    Look at the anti-consumer hell America has become and you see why countries impose these laws. It's to protect people from companies selling and trading garbage without anyone stopping them. The ACCC does a lot of good when it comes to consumer rights.

    Avatar image for andrewb
    AndrewB

    7816

    Forum Posts

    82

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 16

    #25  Edited By AndrewB

    Sure it's good to push the issue, but Valve totally does offer refunds on games when you contact them with a legitimate reason. It just isn't a seamless one-click option like you would see on a site like Amazon which mostly offers physical goods (although to Amazon's credit, they refunded me for a digital game tied to a Steam key before - though I hadn't yet used said key, not sure if they had any way of knowing that for sure).

    But yeah, the fact that their forward-stated policy is harsh could probably be fixed.

    Avatar image for alwaysbebombing
    alwaysbebombing

    2785

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @shivoa said:
    @joshwent said:

    @counterclockwork87 said:

    A private company can't just do whatever it wants. They are immune to law? If abortion is illegal in a country I can't just open up a "private" clinic. If it's against the law it's against the law, and in this case Australia may have a law that would force Valve to offer refunds.

    Okay, not really at all what I was saying there. A company can't break the law, sure. I can't open Josh's Murder Co. and go around killing people because it's a "private" business.

    I'm just saying that when governments make specific laws that dictate the policies of a privately owned company, it can cross some sketchy lines. A business should be free to create their return policies as they see fit, just as consumers are free to not shop there if they don't like said policies.

    No, they should be required by law to provide goods without deception, otherwise I've got a lovely bridge you really must buy. That is what the consumer protection of sales is about, providing confidence that you're not being scammed by offering legal protection for the transaction/quality of the goods. It makes everything better.

    Even libertarians are for government protection of consumers as long as it something along the lines of a poor or deceptive practice and doesn't impact the consumers right to choose.

    Avatar image for extomar
    EXTomar

    5047

    Forum Posts

    4

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    A refund policy would be nice but I could work with Steam without one. I have in the past just thrown a game away when I found returning it was too much work or effort and I do the same thing with digital games.

    Avatar image for jarmahead
    jArmAhead

    354

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #28  Edited By jArmAhead

    @shivoa said:

    This sounds like good news. I think moves to stabilise digital goods rights to more closely mirror those of physical products will increase consumer trust (gamers win), lead to more risk taking in purchases and so more upside to taking creative risks (devs win), and a healthier long term store (distributors/platform owners win). Enforcement of these consumer protections on digital stores is a great thing for everyone; it's almost as if, many years ago, people worked out that consumers who felt safe to hand over currency for goods because they knew they weren't going to get scammed made trade easier and everyone better off so they made up a set of rules that best protected equitable exchanges. Then someone decided moving from buying a box (with a load of 0s and 1s in it) to getting that product down a pipe (built to send those 0s and 1s) was a great time to try and roll back those consumer protections. And now there's all this worry about how to avoid being scammed by bad products, how products should be restricted from even getting onto infinite digital shelves to protect people, and so on.

    I think this is an idea whose time has come, as I've commented before while explaining exactly how this stuff is meant to make consumers feel safe handing over their money. GOG gives you refunds for 30 days (although they could do more), even EA have some refund policy in place for not-Origin; it's time Steam changed to their "argue with a CS rep using a support ticket and maybe we'll refund you" policy.

    While I generally agree, from my experience returns are not always as "equitable" as you might think. I think it depends on the item, the industry, etc. For example, retailers take it up the ass when it comes to returning electronics. They have to A) give the customer back their money B) on their own dime return the item to the manufacturer and C) lose inventory as a result. And more often than not, it's the customer's fault. We had so many people "buying" projectors for the weekend and returning them we practically tried to discourage people from buying them. We were bleeding money from it. You can charge a restocking fee, but customers always got pissed off when we brought it up during the return and claimed they never had been told about that policy. Which of course was never true. Our return policy was fairly limited, and even then most people were able to take advantage of it.

    I had one customer buy a fucking laptop, try to set it up IN THE STORE, and then return it because he couldn't figure out how to get it connected to wifi. After having it explained to him he'd need to be somewhere with working wifi to set it up and unless he intended to move into the store, it would be useless to set up our (broken ass) wifi beyond to insure that his wifi was operational.

    Valve could certainly streamline the process, but I don't want to see Valve forced into implementing a system that is any more easily taken advantage of. They need to be protected from uneducated buyers and those who would abuse such policies as much as buyers should be protected from unforeseeable and legitimate issues with their purchases.

    My point is just that there are two sides to this and I think there's too little responsibility on the buyer's side of things. All Valve needs to do is clarify their policies and maybe set aside some manpower to make things move along a little quicker. I've always been able to get returns on games when I had a legitimate reason (incompatibility, unexpected game breaking bugs, accidental purchases, etc). And I've never had to "argue." I don't expect them to just return my money because I ask them to. If you give them an up front, clear explanation about why you are returning it, they will refund you. They just need to state in a policy somewhere that you can get a return with legitimate cause, so long as you go through the proper channels.

    Avatar image for jarmahead
    jArmAhead

    354

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @joshwent said:

    I'm increasingly saddened to see folks welcome government intervention and litigation in a private company's policies with open arms. But I understand. If you want something done, you're happy to have the biggest unimpeachable bully in the room on your side.

    Just don't complain when that behemoth crushes something you didn't want it to. You created it.

    Look at the anti-consumer hell America has become and you see why countries impose these laws. It's to protect people from companies selling and trading garbage without anyone stopping them. The ACCC does a lot of good when it comes to consumer rights.

    Anti-consumer? You not knowing what you're buying isn't anti-consumer, that's your ignorance. It should be on the consumer to educate themselves or to seek out establishments who have the capacity to educate them on products they are interested in. Having worked in certain retail channels, I can assure you that consumers get away with way more than they ever should be able to because they are idiots or ignored staff members or just wanted to cause trouble. Consumers are entitled assholes in this country and it's because things tend to favor them. Not even because of legislation but because of self-regulation and policy.

    @shivoa said:

    This sounds like good news. I think moves to stabilise digital goods rights to more closely mirror those of physical products will increase consumer trust (gamers win), lead to more risk taking in purchases and so more upside to taking creative risks (devs win), and a healthier long term store (distributors/platform owners win). Enforcement of these consumer protections on digital stores is a great thing for everyone; it's almost as if, many years ago, people worked out that consumers who felt safe to hand over currency for goods because they knew they weren't going to get scammed made trade easier and everyone better off so they made up a set of rules that best protected equitable exchanges. Then someone decided moving from buying a box (with a load of 0s and 1s in it) to getting that product down a pipe (built to send those 0s and 1s) was a great time to try and roll back those consumer protections. And now there's all this worry about how to avoid being scammed by bad products, how products should be restricted from even getting onto infinite digital shelves to protect people, and so on.

    I think this is an idea whose time has come, as I've commented before while explaining exactly how this stuff is meant to make consumers feel safe handing over their money. GOG gives you refunds for 30 days (although they could do more), even EA have some refund policy in place for not-Origin; it's time Steam changed to their "argue with a CS rep using a support ticket and maybe we'll refund you" policy.

    While I generally agree, from my experience returns are not always as "equitable" as you might think. I think it depends on the item, the industry, etc. For example, retailers take it up the ass when it comes to returning electronics. They have to A) give the customer back their money B) on their own dime return the item to the manufacturer and C) lose inventory as a result. And more often than not, it's the customer's fault. We had so many people "buying" projectors for the weekend and returning them we practically tried to discourage people from buying them. We were bleeding money from it. You can charge a restocking fee, but customers always got pissed off when we brought it up during the return and claimed they never had been told about that policy. Which of course was never true. Our return policy was fairly limited, and even then most people were able to take advantage of it.

    I had one customer buy a fucking laptop, try to set it up IN THE STORE, and then return it because he couldn't figure out how to get it connected to wifi. After having it explained to him he'd need to be somewhere with working wifi to set it up and unless he intended to move into the store, it would be useless to set up our (broken ass) wifi beyond to insure that his wifi was operational.

    Valve could certainly streamline the process, but I don't want to see Valve forced into implementing a system that is any more easily taken advantage of. They need to be protected from uneducated buyers and those who would abuse such policies as much as buyers should be protected from unforeseeable and legitimate issues with their purchases.

    My point is just that there are two sides to this and I think there's too little responsibility on the buyer's side of things. All Valve needs to do is clarify their policies and maybe set aside some manpower to make things move along a little quicker. I've always been able to get returns on games when I had a legitimate reason (incompatibility, unexpected game breaking bugs, accidental purchases, etc). And I've never had to "argue." I don't expect them to just return my money because I ask them to. If you give them an up front, clear explanation about why you are returning it, they will refund you. They just need to state in a policy somewhere that you can get a return with legitimate cause, so long as you go through the proper channels.

    Avatar image for oldirtybearon
    Oldirtybearon

    5626

    Forum Posts

    86

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 0

    Anything that gives back rights to the consumers is A-OK in my book

    Avatar image for metal_mills
    metal_mills

    3604

    Forum Posts

    4049

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 10

    User Lists: 3

    @metal_mills said:

    @joshwent said:

    I'm increasingly saddened to see folks welcome government intervention and litigation in a private company's policies with open arms. But I understand. If you want something done, you're happy to have the biggest unimpeachable bully in the room on your side.

    Just don't complain when that behemoth crushes something you didn't want it to. You created it.

    Look at the anti-consumer hell America has become and you see why countries impose these laws. It's to protect people from companies selling and trading garbage without anyone stopping them. The ACCC does a lot of good when it comes to consumer rights.

    Anti-consumer? You not knowing what you're buying isn't anti-consumer, that's your ignorance. It should be on the consumer to educate themselves or to seek out establishments who have the capacity to educate them on products they are interested in. Having worked in certain retail channels, I can assure you that consumers get away with way more than they ever should be able to because they are idiots or ignored staff members or just wanted to cause trouble. Consumers are entitled assholes in this country and it's because things tend to favor them. Not even because of legislation but because of self-regulation and policy.

    If you buy a game on day 1 and it's completely broken, unplayable, or they've deceived you in some way then you deserve a refund. That has nothing to do with ignorance. The law doesn't say you can return just because you're bored of it. It has to be faulty or not as described which is completely fair. If you ordered a steak and they gave you a burger patty on a plate would you send it back or not say anything? I work in retail too and this has nothing to do with what you can get away with, it's not letting COMPANIES get away with even worse.

    Avatar image for immortal_guy
    Immortal_Guy

    203

    Forum Posts

    2

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @jarmahead: I'm sure some customers will always be "entitled assholes", as you put it, because some people are just like that. But that doesn't change the fact that some companies go out of their way to mislead people - and when they're pulling out all the stops, the blame doesn't just rest with the consumer for being suckered in by it, without the company taking any responsibility. I'm more thinking about things like zero interest credit cards and payday loans companies, but the point still stands - as well as having a responsibility to learn about things, consumers have a right to not be deliberatly misled about things. You could argue that maybe some regulators get the balance wrong, but it seems hard to argue that there should be no regulation at all.

    Avatar image for mike
    mike

    18011

    Forum Posts

    23067

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: -1

    User Lists: 6

    I thought after GOG implemented their "if it doesn't work on your PC we'll help you fix it or refund it" policy I assumed Steam might follow suit with a much more paired down version.

    Even a 24 hour period of return would be great and you could add on a 'must have been played less then 1 or 2 hours stipulation. I bought the Witcher 1 on my PC thinking I could run it on low settings and I can't. So now, it sits, unplayed and until I am able to upgrade it will stay that way.

    Unfortunately unless someone makes Steam change their ways they will never see the reason too. Just another reason I'm fascinated when people say they love Steam but I see so little love for GOG out there.

    I was just going to mention GOG's return policy myself. I would use them more, but GOG just doesn't have the catalog of games that Valve offers. For that reason I normally don't even bother unless they are having a sale.

    Avatar image for finaldasa
    FinalDasa

    3862

    Forum Posts

    9965

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 9

    User Lists: 16

    #34 FinalDasa  Moderator

    @mb: They usually get a bunch of the smaller Inide games, but it does take some time on occasion. I use them as a good source for older games (Sim City 2000, Roller Coaster Tycoon) but I have noticed they've been getting more and more bigger games recently.

    Avatar image for dixavd
    Dixavd

    3013

    Forum Posts

    245

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 5

    Hasn't it been the case that Valve's refunds have been an unspoken rule? I hear fairly frequently about games whose developers screwed up somehow (usually in describing the game) and then a big fuss is made, and so Valve just refunds anyone who complains to them directly (usually to shut people up). I think saying that Valve doesn't offer refunds is a bit disingenuous (though I agree that Valve's policy is pretty shitty). This won't likely go anywhere for a couple years - and I doubt it would hold much clout outside Australia - but who knows, right?

    Avatar image for rowr
    Rowr

    5861

    Forum Posts

    249

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 3

    I find this kind of hilarious given how difficullt it is to get a refund on stuff in this country, compared to like the USA which tend to be super customer friendly.

    Our government loves to chase up on a technicality though, we inhereted that british empire order and buerocracy.

    I can see the issue though, I mean if we buy a game for 90 dollars on steam (why its ninety dollars no one fucking knows anyway since the usual excuse of shipping wont work on digital distribution.) and then the fucking game wont work thats a pretty strong case for getting upset. The ACCC protects customer rights in this country and without it the average person is pretty likely to get fucked over all the time given our absolute lack of competition for anything - thus our shit house customer service.

    Avatar image for turambar
    Turambar

    8283

    Forum Posts

    114

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #37  Edited By Turambar

    @joshwent said:

    @counterclockwork87 said:

    A private company can't just do whatever it wants. They are immune to law? If abortion is illegal in a country I can't just open up a "private" clinic. If it's against the law it's against the law, and in this case Australia may have a law that would force Valve to offer refunds.

    Okay, not really at all what I was saying there. A company can't break the law, sure. I can't open Josh's Murder Co. and go around killing people because it's a "private" business.

    I'm just saying that when governments make specific laws that dictate the policies of a privately owned company, it can cross some sketchy lines. A business should be free to create their return policies as they see fit, just as consumers are free to not shop there if they don't like said policies.

    Except this is the application of existing laws to an entire relatively new method of selling goods as opposed to the targeting of specific companies with new policies. Your concern is largely irrelevant to the situation.

    This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

    Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

    Comment and Save

    Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.