How hard can it be to get a refund?

[Ttaskmaster]

its not subject to change once your project is closed

So all those changes made in response to player feedback during Alpha, Beta and Gamma testing... by that same logic, those are also outrageous violations of the game description, are they? How come (almost*) no players are upset about those?

and to use one of your supplied definitions *achievable*

A 6GHz overclock is 'achievable' for my CPU and I might well be able to achieve it... but there is certainly no guarantee. It is possible I will choose to go watch TV instead.
The word also does not mean guaranteed. In the legal sense, it means 'can be done', not 'will be'. Legal terminology is pretty specific, with lots of 'shall', 'must' and 'will' rather than 'maybe' and 'might'.

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

Nope.
An *intended* feature which was nowhere near implemented and still being investigated/developed at the time the page was last updated, which is why they explained further about still looking into how it might work.
If you are relying on the Kickstarter description only, it is already proven subject to change and covered from both a legal and moral perspective.
It was also subject to change after the Kickstarter had kick-*started* the project, which was also made abundantly clear on many occasions.

its a shame, as it was an advertised feature of the game - by definition.

It was advertised as an *intended* feature of the game.

your trying to offer the legal recourse of plausible denial but frontier deveolpements themselves left little room for interpretation of the line:

They purposely left almost no room for interpretation, which is why I talked it through with Trading Standards to get an official consumer law perspective on it. I'm not making all this up - This is what qualified, certified legal authorities have officially stated is the correct legal interpretation and what would be applied if they took the case to court, for either party. Unless you have more legal degrees than them, I don't know what else to say... apart from good luck in court, then.

[herulach]

So all those changes made in response to player feedback during Alpha, Beta and Gamma testing... by that same logic, those are also outrageous violations of the game description, are they? How come (almost*) no players are upset about those?



A 6GHz overclock is 'achievable' for my CPU and I might well be able to achieve it... but there is certainly no guarantee. It is possible I will choose to go watch TV instead.
The word also does not mean guaranteed. In the legal sense, it means 'can be done', not 'will be'. Legal terminology is pretty specific, with lots of 'shall', 'must' and 'will' rather than 'maybe' and 'might'.



Nope.
An *intended* feature which was nowhere near implemented and still being investigated/developed at the time the page was last updated, which is why they explained further about still looking into how it might work.
If you are relying on the Kickstarter description only, it is already proven subject to change and covered from both a legal and moral perspective.
It was also subject to change after the Kickstarter had kick-*started* the project, which was also made abundantly clear on many occasions.



It was advertised as an *intended* feature of the game.



They purposely left almost no room for interpretation, which is why I talked it through with Trading Standards to get an official consumer law perspective on it. I'm not making all this up - This is what qualified, certified legal authorities have officially stated is the correct legal interpretation and what would be applied if they took the case to court, for either party. Unless you have more legal degrees than them, I don't know what else to say... apart from good luck in court, then.

I really don't know why I'm getting involved in this, but the fervency with which frontier are being defended irks me for some reason. However, go read post 3. Allen didn't fund it on kickstarter, where it would have been a lost cause. He pre-ordered a game which should by then have had a more or less complete list of features. If you pre-order a physical product and it is missing something key to the operation which it was claimed it would have then you are entitled to a refund. Similarly if you were buying a service in advance which then was not properly delivered. This situation is no different.

Its fairly apparent that Frontier had absolutely no idea what they were getting themselves in for, they've effectively committed themselves to building and supporting a huge MMO with no ongoing fee model and a budget of the order of 10% of what something like WOW cost. The support issues are excusable when a game is in development, as is the thing being a buggy mess. However this is release, in theory I could walk down to my local game and buy it (although not, because they can't get their dvds printed in time and game hardly sell PC games).

[Ttaskmaster]

I really don't know why I'm getting involved in this, but the fervency with which frontier are being defended irks me for some reason.

Probably for the same reason I feel FD are getting disproportionately high and quite undeserved flak and am irked when so many mistruths are spread that furthers it.
Some of my friends are devs themselves (though not for FD or in any way associated with their projects (that I know of)) and the biggest stresses they get are release deadlines and handling complaints from gamers who think they know better, even when the dev process is 100% open and public.
Certainly if I was a Dev, I'd chuck it all in and tell people to get stuffed.

Allen didn't fund it on kickstarter, where it would have been a lost cause. He pre-ordered a game which should by then have had a more or less complete list of features.

It did, more or less.
The Offline has always been at the 'seeing if we can' stage ever since I read about it.

If you pre-order a physical product and it is missing something key to the operation which it was claimed it would have then you are entitled to a refund.

Yep, very much so.
My argument is that inclusion of the feature in question and the stated intent to include it was not as certain as many people had (incorrectly) believed.
The legal side of the argument still stands, even if FD themselves are happy to refund the pre-order part for those thusly entitled.

From Allen's account of the situation: FD confirmed a refund of that part to which the buyer is definitely legally entitled to, although there would appear to be a processing delay somewhere along the line (FD-Bank-PayPal-Bank and whatever in between), probably due to the high number of service tickets and the seasonal holidays. With written confirmation from FD, the refund still stands and there is probably a set time outside of which the refund process would be deemed unreasonable, though I'd have to find out what that time is... but it should still happen. And I hope FD get around to it sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, PayPal were called in to resolve the dispute and they actually ruled against FD's own refund... I wasn't sure they could overrule an authorised refund, unless it's their way of saying they don't have to/are not getting involved.

Its fairly apparent that Frontier had absolutely no idea what they were getting themselves in for, they've effectively committed themselves to building and supporting a huge MMO with no ongoing fee model and a budget of the order of 10% of what something like WOW cost.

But is it 10% of the size of WoW?
I don't have stats on that...

And yeah, they possibly didn't know it would turn out quite so big, especially as a lot of what they and RSI/CI are doing comprises fairly new and untested models.
But should we slam them now and shut them down for trying, so that they or anyone else never bothers to attempt something cool again... or give them a chance to get on top, iron out the issues and see if they can deliver?

Some of us have waited 30 years for this game - What's a few more weeks...?

The support issues are excusable when a game is in development, as is the thing being a buggy mess.

I have a hard drive full of big title games that were released years before I even bought them. All are fully patched and everything, yet still they are far buggier than Elite.
Heck, how often does Steam fail to connect when you open it up?

However this is release, in theory I could walk down to my local game and buy it (although not, because they can't get their dvds printed in time and game hardly sell PC games).

Is it fair to bash the developer if a company they have hired to print DVDs have not delivered?
To me, that's like that YouTube reviewer who blamed FD because his own ISP or antivirus was blocking downloads...

[herulach]

Probably for the same reason I feel FD are getting disproportionately high and quite undeserved flak and am irked when so many mistruths are spread that furthers it.
Some of my friends are devs themselves (though not for FD or in any way associated with their projects (that I know of)) and the biggest stresses they get are release deadlines and handling complaints from gamers who think they know better, even when the dev process is 100% open and public.
Certainly if I was a Dev, I'd chuck it all in and tell people to get stuffed.


It did, more or less.
The Offline has always been at the 'seeing if we can' stage ever since I read about it.

I CBA finding them, but there have certainly been posts citing various features lists that included singleplayer (which your 'reasonable' person would assume to be offline capable unless it specifically stated it used always on DRM

Yep, very much so.
My argument is that inclusion of the feature in question and the stated intent to include it was not as certain as many people had (incorrectly) believed.
The legal side of the argument still stands, even if FD themselves are happy to refund the pre-order part for those thusly entitled.

From Allen's account of the situation: FD confirmed a refund of that part to which the buyer is definitely legally entitled to, although there would appear to be a processing delay somewhere along the line (FD-Bank-PayPal-Bank and whatever in between), probably due to the high number of service tickets and the seasonal holidays. With written confirmation from FD, the refund still stands and there is probably a set time outside of which the refund process would be deemed unreasonable, though I'd have to find out what that time is... but it should still happen. And I hope FD get around to it sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, PayPal were called in to resolve the dispute and they actually ruled against FD's own refund... I wasn't sure they could overrule an authorised refund, unless it's their way of saying they don't have to/are not getting involved.

Paypals decision has absolutely no bearing on the legal position of anything. Similarly, I think Allen's objection is that a partial refund isn't good enough. They failed to deliver the product he bought and as such he should receive a full refund. Say you preordered a new car, which the spec list said it had bluetooth, then it is delivered without it because 'specifications are subject to change at any time' but you're a travelling salesman who needs to be on the phone for work. Are you going to take a partial refund or are you going to reject delivery and get a different car?

But is it 10% of the size of WoW?
I don't have stats on that...

And yeah, they possibly didn't know it would turn out quite so big, especially as a lot of what they and RSI/CI are doing comprises fairly new and untested models.
But should we slam them now and shut them down for trying, so that they or anyone else never bothers to attempt something cool again... or give them a chance to get on top, iron out the issues and see if they can deliver?

Some of us have waited 30 years for this game - What's a few more weeks...?

I have a hard drive full of big title games that were released years before I even bought them. All are fully patched and everything, yet still they are far buggier than Elite.
Heck, how often does Steam fail to connect when you open it up?

I've no idea either, but that isn't really my point. Nor do I think they should can the whole thing, whoever, the main criticism of UBI, EA etc recently has been forcing release of incomplete product to meet arbitrary release deadlines. It seems as though FD, free from evil publishers, have chosen to do exactly the same thing.

Is it fair to bash the developer if a company they have hired to print DVDs have not delivered?
To me, that's like that YouTube reviewer who blamed FD because his own ISP or antivirus was blocking downloads...

If FD have decided to take on the role of publisher, developer and retailer then its absolutely fair to criticise them for failing to fulfil their obligations. They have sold something here, saying 'we're just a small developer don't be mean' doesn't exempt them from their obligations. At the very least you'd expect them to keep people reliably informed of the status of their orders.

[flearider]

why don't you just sell your key ? if possible ..you get some cash who ever gets the game ..

[Ttaskmaster]

I CBA finding them, but there have certainly been posts citing various features lists that included singleplayer (which your 'reasonable' person would assume to be offline capable unless it specifically stated it used always on DRM

Not really anything to do with DRM specifically, as that is more focussed on account access control than copy-protection and is handled by logging in to the launcher at the beginning.
But it was stated even as far back as the Kickstarter that 'Singleplayer' referred to the Online Solo, as per the description already copied earlier in this thread. With a statement as specific as that, if anyone (reasonable or otherwise) chooses to assume it means something else, that's their problem.

Paypals decision has absolutely no bearing on the legal position of anything.

Not between FD and the end user, no. However, it was interesting to me that they would take a stance contrary to the retailer, so I suspect they are indeed just refusing to intervene. It may also depend on PayPal's source of legal interpretation, which at the least could sway a court case.

They failed to deliver the product he bought and as such he should receive a full refund.

He technically paid for two things, one of which was used and therefore non-refundable by all the terms and conditions that apply.

the main criticism of UBI, EA etc recently has been forcing release of incomplete product to meet arbitrary release deadlines.

Near as I can see, ED is complete as per the features already confirmed. Anything else (planetary landings, for example) was just a 'maybe now, if not in a future upgrade', of which we were all made aware and with which most of us seemed perfectly happy. What you think you're buying and what they have said you're actually buying is more of a caveat emptor at that point.

It seems as though FD, free from evil publishers, have chosen to do exactly the same thing.

But with the advanced warning that such issues may occur. In some cases, it wasn't as advanced as one might have hoped, but they let customers know as soon as possible.

If FD have decided to take on the role of publisher, developer and retailer then its absolutely fair to criticise them for failing to fulfil their obligations.

Are they failing though, or are they still getting it done and there's just a queue?
What's the timescale for resolution of issues and subsequent and delivery?

At the very least you'd expect them to keep people reliably informed of the status of their orders.

For the most part, they are. Certainly they're doing better than most larger companies (like my own employer).

[TooNice]

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...

The difference is far less than you make it. If you want to imply that something is possible, but may or may not happen, the obvious choice is to use the term "might".

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

I wonder if the context you are pushing for could really stands up in court. Regardless of what your claim about "people who know far more about legal interpretation".
But even if we assume that your interpretation has any legs to stand on (I am still not buying it), why would they bother to put an update specifically to state that a requested feature "will be possible" if not to imply that it be done. People asking aren't interested to know if something is technically feasible, they want to know if it will be done.

I haven't followed the drama. I am not invested in that game/project. But if what you are saying is the basis of their defence, then it just damaged my perception of the developers (I read your arguments, I feel that the hole just get dug deeper and deeper). The best thing the developers could do in my eye, is to state honestly that they have changed their stance regarding offline mode, and offer a sincere apology. And that is as someone who didn't buy the game that should put me back on neutral. But if I was the OP's position, I'd want a refund or at least a partial one.

[Ttaskmaster]

If you want to imply that something is possible, but may or may not happen, the obvious choice is to use the term "might".

The difference is slight, but still definite.
The obvious choice would be plainer language than FD tend to use, but they choose to use these words for a reason and rarely re-word things in order to clarify/simplify it. Smacks to me of ass-covering Legalese.

I wonder if the context you are pushing for could really stands up in court.

That's why I took it to Trading Standards for an official interpretation - They retain legal professionals such as barristers and solicitors who present TS's prosecutions in court and provide legal services such as definitive interpretations of the law. That's about the best you can get without actually going to court and seeing how your particular case turns out, but is legal advice based on the entire history of similar cases.
It's also free to the public via the TS helpline... although I just asked a friend to raise it with his legal department, because he's a TS Enforcement Officer and was round my house at the time.

why would they bother to put an update specifically to state that a requested feature "will be possible" if not to imply that it be done.

I imagine because this was still at Kickstarter stage, so they have to comply with KS's regs on their product description as well as any applicable laws.
By using 'possible', they are demonstrating every *intent* to include a feature, but not guaranteeing it, so if they end up not delivering it for whatever reasons (as they now have), no-one should have any grounds to hold them to it... particularly Kickstarter.
It's as much for their benefit as everyone else's.

People asking aren't interested to know if something is technically feasible, they want to know if it will be done.

Some also want to know if it is being done, either now or for a future release, or if it's even being considered. IIRC, this part was on the KS project's FAQ page, which suggests a lot of people had already asked if it could/would happen.

But if what you are saying is the basis of their defence, then it just damaged my perception of the developers.

From what I know about such things, I'd say it's pretty much the standard legal defence of most retailers, so nothing new at all and pretty much par for the course whenever I've gone back to someone about a product.
A lot of it is covered from the outset if you fully read your Terms & Conditions, Contracts, EULAs and everything in conjuction with your legal rights as a consumer, which I generally do before I sign up to anything. I can be as picky about my smallprint as Saracen is about minimising his online footprint - That's what having TS Officers as friends does to you!

Therefore I didn't get my hopes especially high as they did keep saying they were still only working out if they could do the Offline (however good things were looking and however much they intended to make it happen), so I wasn't especially shocked when they finally said they couldn't... mainly just a bit surprised that they only chose/were able to announce it SO close to release!!

The best thing the developers could do in my eye, is to state honestly that they have changed their stance regarding offline mode, and offer a sincere apology.

I have to say, I don't recall seeing that much in the way of an actual apology from FD...
They're very good at stating the facts, but they don't come across as particularly touchy-feely and emotionally engaging as far as their customer base goes.

But if I was the OP's position, I'd want a refund or at least a partial one.

Most definitely and in cases where the pre-ordered final release version has not been downloaded and accessed, every customer *IS* legally entitled to that £35 refund.

The £15 for pre-release test-access is both a separate and a different product, the use of which works along the same lines as them Radeon Rewards 'Never Settle' game vouchers - Once you redeem it, it's yours, done, finished, fully used up and no longer refundable.
Those who did not make use of it should also be entitled to a refund on that.


With all the work and thought I seem to be putting into this, I'm starting to wonder if I should send FD a bill for my legal defense and PR services, heh heh!!

[yamangman]

Loathe to re-open this singularly tedious debate, but hey-ho. When i spoke in person for a good 20 minutes to frontiers' coo (david, forget his surname) we talked about refunds, software licensing and consumer protection in the download sphere. He told me mistakes were made, and was very apologetic. Judging by the thread few it seems trust the bizarre position of the frontier apologist. Just trying to figure out their angle - project backer perhaps? Doing all they can to ensure investment doesn't fail?

[Ttaskmaster]

Judging by the thread few it seems trust the bizarre position of the frontier apologist. Just trying to figure out their angle - project backer perhaps? Doing all they can to ensure investment doesn't fail?

What, me?
I'm simply of the opinion that FD have achieved something fantastic, which I happen to like and for which I feel they should be congratulated, rather than burned at the stake under incorrect accusations.
Then again Matt Taylor helped land a flippin' probe on a comet, but all people actually cared about was that he had tattoos and that his shirt might have been slightly offensive, so who am I to expect people to see reason...

My angle?
"You're wrong". That's about the whole of it.

I'm on the side of the law and simply going by what it says. How is that bizarre?
But hell, don't trust me - Go learn the law for yourself, take it to court, challenge the qualified legal professionals and see what your internet legalese gets you. I bet it won't be a full refund!

Badgering a seller until you get a refund does not equal entitlement.

I have no investment in the game beyond wanting to play it, which I now am. I'm just calling BS on all the tantrums and demands for refunds that people think their own misinterpretation, despite being told how things would actually be, somehow entitles them to... and substantiating that BS call with what the law says they're *actually* entitled to.


In short, how hard can it be to get a refund? If you're not entitled to it - Very.

[Splash]

Just trying to figure out their angle - project backer perhaps? Doing all they can to ensure investment doesn't fail?

As a fellow project backer I just wanted to pick you up on this: backing something on Kickstarter does *not* constitute an investment. The closest it comes is a financial contribution to getting something made, and now that the game has indeed been made I'd say that any chances of an investment failing are long gone.

I've no qualms with people requesting a refund if they feel that they were misled. I know for a fact that Allen was not a KS backer, so his terms of engagement may be significantly different to mine but... having spent an amount of time on the FD forums the one thing I can say is that I wish those who were taking their toys to play elsewhere would simply act on their word - I totally agree that it's gone beyond tedious now.

[HalloweenJack]

What, me?
I'm simply of the opinion that FD have achieved something fantastic, which I happen to like and for which I feel they should be congratulated, rather than burned at the stake under incorrect accusations.
Then again Matt Taylor helped land a flippin' probe on a comet, but all people actually cared about was that he had tattoos and that his shirt might have been slightly offensive, so who am I to expect people to see reason...

My angle?
"You're wrong". That's about the whole of it.

I'm on the side of the law and simply going by what it says. How is that bizarre?
But hell, don't trust me - Go learn the law for yourself, take it to court, challenge the qualified legal professionals and see what your internet legalese gets you. I bet it won't be a full refund!

Badgering a seller until you get a refund does not equal entitlement.

I have no investment in the game beyond wanting to play it, which I now am. I'm just calling BS on all the tantrums and demands for refunds that people think their own misinterpretation, despite being told how things would actually be, somehow entitles them to... and substantiating that BS call with what the law says they're *actually* entitled to.


In short, how hard can it be to get a refund? If you're not entitled to it - Very.

your wrong

I proved Frontier Developments wrong in my first and only letter to them and got a refund.

lets play the legal game shall we.

[Ttaskmaster]

your wrong
I proved Frontier Developments wrong in my first and only letter to them and got a refund.

A company may well provide you something out of kindness, in the interest of good customer service, because they feel obliged even when the law says they aren't, or simply just to shut you the hell up.
That does NOT mean you are legally entitled to it, whichever way you like to interpret it and it would lose you a lot of money in legal fees to test this.

lets play the legal game shall we.

Go ahead - Insert coin...

[TooNice]

*Shrug* - I am not that cynical, so I am guessing that it is just a satisfied customer who decided to defend the company like satisfied company sometime do.

Also, he convinced himself that his interpretation is correct, just as I have convinced myself that it is highly dubious, putting it as politely as I can. Assuming that his argument has any leg to stand on, I'd still view the company as I would a political party carefully crafting statement to mislead without outright lying. I will restate that if his arguments are in line with the official stance of the company, then each time it makes me less likely to side with the developers. It is terrible PR as far as I am concerned, but that's just me. If he's managed to convince 100s others otherwise, the company -should- hire him.

But aside from being a bit tedious, this whole thing "debate" feel like a waste of time with little to be gained. It just end up being one interpretation vs another, but no matter how much we doubt each other, what really matter in the end, is what other prospective customers think faced with the evidence. And they can decide for themselves directly from the relevant text as I have done.

(This post was written after post 42 and directed towards it. It seems like my assertion was correct, though "why" someone would take that side of the issue was never the issue for me. The only thing that I am concerned is, is the official stance of the company)

[Ttaskmaster]

*Shrug* - I am not that cynical, so I am guessing that it is just a satisfied customer who decided to defend the company like satisfied company sometime do.

Actually my interest is more in the consumer law, since it gets discussed between some of my friends who work in that field. I just happen to be more familiar with the details of this particular issue with this particular company than usual.
I was similarly interested in the case of Gearbox's lawsuit regarding Aliens: Colonial Marines.

I have not convinced myself of my own interpretation, since I'm not a legal practitioner, but instead had qualified legal practitioners supply an actual interpretation for me. That is an official line that you can take to the bank... or a court, in this instance.
If you know the law better than they do, then feel free to supply a correction.

I'd still view the company as I would a political party carefully crafting statement to mislead without outright lying.

Everyone was told quite definitely what the situation was, both with confirmed features and potential features.
If you really need it in very plain baby words, in big bold letters several times over, that's nothing to do with the legal obligations of the company.

It is terrible PR as far as I am concerned, but that's just me.

PR and customer service is outside the scope of my main interest in this, being more down to morals and stuff. Given how many people think donating money (ie giving it away) somehow makes them investors and entitled to decide what/how the developers make their game, I'd say they don't even understand what they're donating to...

But aside from being a bit tedious, this whole thing feel like, like a waste of time.

If people actually read what is written, take the time to understand its actual meaning and become aware of what they're signing up to, then this whole mess will happen far less in future... thus not a complete waste.

FD have done (and RSI are doing) some fairly groundbreaking things in both the games they're making and in the methods by which we're getting them. They're also being fairly open with their market throughout their development processesses - They will obviously have lessons to learn along the way... but so do the consumers.
If people want to understand their legal rights, particularly when they are and are not entitled to refunds, then great. If they don't want to understand their entitlements, then they shouldn't come crying when they don't get it.

[yamangman]

This seems fair. I haven't participated in any discussion about the game anywhere else. I just got in contact with Frontier when I realised promises weren't being kept. It took some effort and visit in person to their office. As I say they gave me a full refund, their COO apologised to me in person, and the matter is now closed for me. I just feel sorry for those who have been given the run-around, and simply trying to suss out the gentlemans' vociferous advocacy for the status quo - software is unusual as a consumer product and individiuals are less well protected than with more traditional purchases. Consider for instance the EULA which requires acceptance upon installation after a purchase has been made - i.e. at a point too late to actually return the product if you disagree with it - though cases have gone to court which prove the software vendors at fault in these instances. I for one still apply the Sale of Goods Act to such purchases, and would rather see all companies be held to account when expectations (when explicitly stated on or inside products or on marketing materials, as pertains to the SGA) don't meet reality.

As a fellow project backer I just wanted to pick you up on this: backing something on Kickstarter does *not* constitute an investment. The closest it comes is a financial contribution to getting something made, and now that the game has indeed been made I'd say that any chances of an investment failing are long gone.

I've no qualms with people requesting a refund if they feel that they were misled. I know for a fact that Allen was not a KS backer, so his terms of engagement may be significantly different to mine but... having spent an amount of time on the FD forums the one thing I can say is that I wish those who were taking their toys to play elsewhere would simply act on their word - I totally agree that it's gone beyond tedious now.