How hard can it be to get a refund?

[Saracen]

That's not an opinion, that is how consumer law works.
If the retailer still chooses to provide a full or partial refund, it is at their complete discretion but they are not required to provide one.

Also, your ONE quote of some random Reddit post holds no weight with regard to proving that FD actually PROMISED anything.
Nowhere in the official Frontier Developments documentation, be it website, email or anything of that ilk do they say definitely, absolutely, certainly, 100% guaranteed and may god strike us down if we don't deliver, that they WOULD include Offline mode in the final product... All they have ever said (and have said numerous times) is that they would try and were working on it.
If you can find an OFFICIAL statement from FD stating otherwise, THEN I would believe you.

If you simply misread or misinterpreted these official statements as something else, then you have built up your own fantasy and let yourself down. You, or anyone else bleating about broken promises are whining about something that never actually existed.

Statements do not need to be 100% and "may God strike us down". The buyer is entitled to simply expect and require that good are "as described". If FD said it includes an offline mode, and it doesn't, then it isn't as desribed, in exactly the same way as if they'd sold a camera stating it had an integrated flashgun, then decided at the last moment to leave out the flashgun.

Nor tp phrases about people "bleating" or "whining" help, so kindly stop doing it.

Where I agree with you is that it ALL depends on exactly what FD said about offline mode. It depends, in other words, on HOW they described the product.

Also, whether a refund is full or partial is NOT absolutely at the retailer's discretion. Once delivered, goods can, in legal terms, be accepted or rejected .... and this ISN'T about phydical acceptance but legal acceptance. There are a variety of ways "acceptance" can occur, including doing anything not consistent with having not rejected them (like physically altering, or selling them) OR, and this is the catch-all, not rejecting them in a reasonable time. But .... buyers do have that period, pre-acceptance, to ensure goods comply with the stipulations of the contract, and that emphatically includes the implied conditions embedded in EVERY B2C contract, by the Sale of Goods Act, including the stipulation that goods be "as described".

The SoGA is more complex than most people realise, and there are B2B sections relating to bulk orders, sale by sample, etc where other conditions apply, but in basic consumer contracts, it is also not an option for the retailer to say they supplied 70% of the order, so here's a refund for the 30% of features they did not put in. In is certainly not down to themvto attribute what features consist of what percentage. In my case, for instance, online play consists of 0% of my reason for buying, or intended game play, and offline play for 109% of it. Without an offline mode, I don't want the game if they gave it to me free, because the machine I use for gaming doesn't have a net connection.

What retailers can do, is AFTER a product has bern accepted, is to offer a repair, replacement or, yes, partial refund to account for usage already had. If TV might be expected to last 5 years (60 months) but dies after 13.5 months, they could justify a 13.5/60ths deduction for use.

But that usn't the same as delivering a car sold as having air-con then deducting some random percentage as the part that is air-con. If the car was desribed as having air-con, and doesn't have it, that is grounds for rejecting the WHOLE car, because it isn't "as described".

And the retailer has NO discretion at all in the size of the refund for unaccepted goods being rejected because they breach the Sale of Goods Act. Paetial refunds simply are not an option.

So, thix all comes down to exactly what FD said about their product, what their "description" was, and when and how fast, and under what circumstances, the goods were 'rejected'.

Oh, and under none of this at all does the retailer have "absolute" discretion. That rests with the Courts.

[Ttaskmaster]

kickstart FAQ - they promised both single player and offline.

They said it is *possible*, not that it will happen and certainly not that it was promised.
It still remains perfectly *possible*, but is not something FD are prepared to develop as they believe it would be too great an undertaking (essentially a whole new game).

The buyer is entitled to simply expect and require that good are "as described".

And that's what people are missing here - The product *is* as described.

If FD said it includes an offline mode, and it doesn't, then it isn't as desribed

They said they would investigate it and would work to try and make it happen. People are mis-reading this as guaranteed included and the plethora of outrage threads is very unfairly slating FD.

Had FD actually promised Offline mode and then failed to deliver, they'd more than deserve the flak. But since they didn't, all that's happening is the threads are merely spreading falsehoods.
As is, there are plenty of other devs who did fail on their promises, but they haven't caught half this kind of flak. Ubisoft can pretty much just do it all the time, as no-one even expects them to deliver half of what they claim any more.

Where I agree with you is that it ALL depends on exactly what FD said about offline mode. It depends, in other words, on HOW they described the product.

I do not see anything amiss with their descriptions so far.
If you see different, please elaborate as I'd genuinely like to know and the Trading Standards guys I've spoken with about this would definitely be surprised.

Also, whether a refund is full or partial is NOT absolutely at the retailer's discretion.

Providing all other legal obligations are met, yes it is.
In the context of the Offline mode, FD have met the legal criteria and satisfied the Trade Descriptions Act. The Sale Of Goods & Services Act lays out what aspects are refundable, if at all and they are adhering to that as well.
By those acts, buyers are often not entitled to a refund on the used test-access part, even if FD choose to refund it anyway. But in those instances, the choice does remain with FD.

But .... buyers do have that period, pre-acceptance, to ensure goods comply with the stipulations of the contract, and that emphatically includes the implied conditions embedded in EVERY B2C contract, by the Sale of Goods Act, including the stipulation that goods be "as described".

Firstly, B2B contracts would not apply to the consumers in this case, unless the product was specifically purchased as or on behalf of a business.

Secondly, by logging in and playing one of the test-phases of the game the user is deemed to have accepted that product in whatever unfinshed (which would be the 'as described' part) state they may be. This is one reason why they are examining each case individually and generally refusing refunds on the paid Alpha/Beta/Gamma portions of any payments made - Because people accepted it and got exactly what they paid for.

in basic consumer contracts, it is also not an option for the retailer to say they supplied 70% of the order, so here's a refund for the 30% of features they did not put in.

But if you pay for 10 items and you initially only receive (but still use) 3, they can refund the cost of the other 7... refunding of the 3 you received is then a different matter.

In is certainly not down to themvto attribute what features consist of what percentage.

The pre-order was one item.
Access to the pre-release tests was a second, separate item.
The latter required payment for the former, but remains a separately itemised purchase on the individual's account, allowing the former to be refunded independently of the latter.

What retailers can do, is AFTER a product has bern accepted, is to offer a repair, replacement or, yes, partial refund to account for usage already had.

And this part in bold is what they are doing - Partial refunds on the item (the pre-ordered final release) that did not get used.
With the test-access, you either used it or you didn't. If you used it even once, it's fully used and you got what you paid for. No contest.

And the retailer has NO discretion at all in the size of the refund for unaccepted goods being rejected because they breach the Sale of Goods Act.

Use of the test access denotes acceptance. All FD have to do (probably as simple as it sounds, but also time-consuming) is check through their server logs to see if you used the access.
You either get a complete £35 refund on the pre-order item if you did, or you get the same plus the additional complete £15 on the test-access item if you did not.

So, thix all comes down to exactly what FD said about their product, what their "description" was, and when and how fast, and under what circumstances, the goods were 'rejected'.

And also the conditions that define acceptance.

[risapylsa]

Pre-ordering games can almost never be a good thing. Some companies may be legitimate but most out there are nothing but money grabbers. A few bad apples spoil the bunch. It seems like way too many developers grab the money from customers than don't release a full product/ what they promised or implement bs 'features' as above.

[TooNice]

They said it is *possible*, not that it will happen and certainly not that it was promised.

However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server.

It says "will be". Not "might be". Not "It is possible that [...]". Possible here refers to the ability here, not the possibility of something happening.

As far as I am concerned, "Will be possible" clearly means that it is not possible now, but it will be.

[HalloweenJack]

Ttaskmaster

David Braben - in his sales pitch to receive money stated it WILL , not might be or possibly


it WILL.

by removing that cast iron feature , it could be said he has defrauded those who paid money for the single player offline experience.

[Splash]

Jack - do you have a link to the post on their forums stating manufacturing issues?

[rob4001]

I only buy games once they have been made so I can make an informed choice by either reading reviews or seeing what happens during development. Any one that pays for an unfinished product then complains it wasn't want they promised gets a lesson in life. You wanted to see a game being made with off-line mode it changed in development, such is life that's the risk you take when being a backer product in development.
I suggest in the future you stick to buying fully finished products.

Look at all the investors that were stitched up with occulus rift didn't see a penny when it was bought out for billions. If you want to fight your corner go for it. I hope you win and get your money back.

The lesson is you back an development product you take your chances. Personally I'm loving elite at the moment but then I did play the original as a kid on the bbc mirco

[Saracen]

Ttaskmaster

David Braben - in his sales pitch to receive money stated it WILL , not might be or possibly


it WILL.

by removing that cast iron feature , it could be said he has defrauded those who paid money for the single player offline experience.

Maybe so, but the Kickstarter phase also had a section on risks, and that assumptions and intentions may change.

However, the OP ordered in the pre-order stage, direct from the website, so what was or wasn't relied relied upon in making that decision will be product descriptions at that stage, not the earlier money-raising stage.

I do agree with rob4001 about, personally, not buying a pig in a poke and buying, or pledging development funds, before I know what I'm getting.

For me, offline mode is absolutely essential. No offline mode, no interest in buying. Period. So when that got cut, so did any chance of me buying. And that is disappointing, as I'd been looking forward to this. But if that's the company's decision, fair enough. I wish they hadn't, but it's their right to decide .... and mine not to buy as a result.

Which is why, personally, no way would I have backed this on Kickstarter, or pre-ordered. I wanted to be SURE what I was buying, before I bought it.

[HalloweenJack]

Jack - do you have a link to the post on their forums stating manufacturing issues?

like you I find the search function aweful and didn't save the direct thread link - which has disappeared amoungst the sea of whinning

[Splash]

Ah well, not to worry. Thanks for getting back to me

(and yes, I tend to visit their forums less of late because while there are some great posts in there they seem to be lost in amongst threats of legal action)

[Ttaskmaster]

Pre-ordering games can almost never be a good thing.

I'd normally agree and have never pre-ordered a single game from a publisher-funded developer.
I got on-board with the crowd-funding idea through the theory that a dev not beholden to the budget-holding publisher's demands for something outside of or contrary to the original project's concept would be far more likely to deliver a better product.

However, I understood with both Star Citizen and Elite that I was giving away money so they could make their game however they wanted, with neither a publisher, nor me or any other third party having any say in what the end result is.
I understood the risks of it stalling, failing or simply not turning out how I'd hoped/thought/expected/dreamed. As is, I'm not too enthused with Star Citizen's flight mechanic, but that's par for the course. I'd already written off the cash I put in anyway.

It says "will be". Not "might be". Not "It is possible that [...]". Possible here refers to the ability here, not the possibility of something happening.

There is a big difference between "will be possible" and "will be done".
It will be possible for me to work 18 hours tomorrow, but there's no guarantee it will be done...

As far as I am concerned, "Will be possible" clearly means that it is not possible now, but it will be.

That's not the context I read it in and the same goes for people who know far more about legal interpretation than I.

David Braben - in his sales pitch to receive money stated it WILL , not might be or possibly

Link to exact wording?
There is a lot of confusion over the Multiplayer and Solo modes, both of which are Online and the potential Offline Solo mode. The latter two were often referred to as Singleplayer, which furthered the confusion as well as the difference between the Multiplayer's permanent server connection and the Solo requiring only sporadic connections for quick in-game data updates.
The wording FD used was always correct and accurate, but not neccesarily as clear and simple as people perhaps would have preferred.

Then again, the game itself is like that and you have to read the descriptions of everything exactly, or you'll make mistakes, so I guess that's the kind of mindset these Devs have...

However, the OP ordered in the pre-order stage, direct from the website, so what was or wasn't relied relied upon in making that decision will be product descriptions at that stage, not the earlier money-raising stage.

AFAIK, it's always said, "The game client works in conjunction with server-based code to deliver its functionality / experience, and therefore requires a continuous internet connection" in the minimum SysReqs and they never changed it even when an Offline mode was on the cards.

The EULA has more about exactly when you can cancel the order/pre-order, but whatever exact product description was there at the time of pre-order is likely no longer easily accessible.

Also - Current info about the Boxed Edition:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...ighlight=boxed

[Splash]

Also - Current info about the Boxed Edition:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...ighlight=boxed

Pretty sure I've seen something stating a January delivery date for the physical goods, bit I'm at work at present so can't check

[Ttaskmaster]

Pretty sure I've seen something stating a January delivery date for the physical goods, bit I'm at work at present so can't check

I briefly scanned this and other threads. I think they said end of January, so still a ways to go...

[HalloweenJack]

There is no confusion - only where you say it is:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ject_faq_43734

Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).

they sold the kickstarter as being single player and offline - neither of which has been delivered!

[Ttaskmaster]

they sold the kickstarter as being single player and offline - neither of which has been delivered!

Firstly, it has already been established that the Kickstarter description was subject to change.
Secondly, Kickstarter sold nothing - Any money given was effectively a donation.
Thirdly, FD use the same very specific language in both their communiques and in the game itself, probably for good reason.

They did not say "players WILL have", just that it would be 'possible'.

Applicable legal definitions of 'possible':
achievable, anticipated, apt, attainable, believable, capable, cogitable, conceivable, credible, feasible, grantable, imaginable, liable, likely, obtainable, performable, plausible, potential, probable, rational, realizable, reasonable, supposable, surmountable, thinkable, unrealized, viable, within reach, within the range of possibility, within the realm of possibility, workable
See also: conditional, contingent, convincing, debatable, future, plausible, potential, practicable, presumptive, probable, prospective and viable.

And even a dictionary definition:
1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of becoming or of being made to be so.
3. Capable of occurring or being done in accordance with something specified.
4. Capable of happening but of uncertain likelihood.
5. Permissible.

Not a single one of those 44 synonyms or 5 basic definitions actually confirms or even infers such a thing definitely will be present.

The above is the intended single player experience.

They have made it quite clear here and elsewhere that 'Single-Player' is what we now call the Online Solo mode. This has been delivered.

However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server.

It still is. FD just aren't doing it... They may still do one day. Who knows.

You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).

Again perfectly accurate and one of the main reasons they abandoned the Offline Mode.
Given how so many people have reacted to the loss of Offline, they may well pick it up later. But since it was never on the cards to start with, since they weren't just remaking the same old Elite merely with better graphics, since they had enough player support from just the Online modes and since it would have been a massive undertaking (by their estimates), the Offline was dropped.

[HalloweenJack]

its not subject to change once your project is closed - and since you have started to break down legality I shall continue:

Will be possible

that is part of the involved sentence in this matter along with the rest:

However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server

Frontier Developments said right their - it will be possible (and to use one of your supplied definitions *achievable*) to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server.

perfect definition of a the saleable feature - which was abandoned after they took the money and ran. *kickstarter campaign was closed*

its a shame, as it was an advertised feature of the game - by definition.
your trying to offer the legal recourse of plausible denial but frontier deveolpements themselves left little room for interpretation of the line:

However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server