How hard can it be to get a refund?

[TooNice]

Regardless of how much you talk about "legal interpretation", to me it is still a dubious claim that has not been tested (and unless this goes on trial, with an outcome, it will remain this way). Besides, we have seen from various corporate battle that just about anything can be argued and defended with another team of lawyers. I am not sufficiently interested to bother my solicitor friends just so that I can come back and say "Well my lawyer friend say that...". Because for a start you can't verify my claims, any more than I can't verify what your claims, and I have no intention of dragging them into an tedious internet debate where I have nothing to gain. I am more interested is what a average person have to say based on the evidence.

You can continue to claim that they didn't use term like "We guarantee" or "I swear that" or whatever you deem necessary to be an iron clad promise. And I will continue to say such terms aren't necessary to heavily imply a particular outcome (and not the one you claim). And other terms should have been used to imply uncertainty with, ahem, certainly if that was the intention. Easily done without patronising the reader and the company can't be accused of trying to pull a fast one.

You were the one suggesting that you should bill them your legal and PR services as a joke. Not that I took it seriously, but on a whim I am decided to reply it would not be in their interest, if the impression this whole thing has left on me is anything to go by. I will let others decide on the "moral and stuff", since we are simply not going to agree. I will make my last post here by re-stating that while it is clear neither of us is going to be in the same page, what really matter is what other prospective customers think. Winning the (alleged) legal argument or having fans (well, a total of 1 on this thread?) siding with the company is not meaningful if a large majority of prospective customer think you are wrong (note the if). I also think that most gamers have nothing to gain from seeing a developer fail (I know I don't), so you'd need to get something quite wrong, legally or morally, to be called on.

[Allen]

I have intentionally been keeping clear of this thread since a particular "fan boy" jumped in with both feet defending the company in question, which wasn't even part of my intended discussion I might add. This thread was, and still should be, about what to do when a company and/or PayPal refuses to refund you when they are refunding other customers. However, it seems all is lost now and there's no way it's getting back on topic.

I am not going to get into a legal debate, because quite frankly I don't know enough about law, but I will say this. Ttaskmaster, you have said many times that FD haven't done anything wrong. It has been shown several times in this thread alone that not only did they say "IT WILL BE POSSIBLE" (not probable) to play offline on their Kickstarter page, but David Braben himself posted on Reddit "YES" (not maybe) in response to a question about playing offline. Do you deny that these statements were made? Or do you really believe that a company can make any statement it wants to and then reverse them later once the money has rolled in?

Whether or not this holds any legal ground is moot in my opinion because quite frankly what they have done is morally wrong, and part of the reason why I requested a refund in the first place. I hate, and will continue to hate and avoid like the plaque, any developer who forces me to play a single player game online. FD's change AFTER I pre-purchased Elite saddened me enough to request a refund, something which I believe I was not wrong to do. If they didn't believe they did something wrong, then why were so many people refunded?

Unfortunately, a week or so ago, I got so pissed off about this whole affair I decided I would rather download the game and force myself to play it than throw £50 down the drain. I lasted about an hour before I was annoyed with myself and the game, so I'll never see that £50 again. Stupid.

Thanks FD, you have wasted my time, you have wasted my money and now you have tarnished the wonderful memories I had of Frontier: Elite II.

Bastards.

[Ttaskmaster]

software is unusual as a consumer product and individiuals are less well protected than with more traditional purchases.

Which is what makes it far more interesting than just the sale of a can of beans or something. Like the Violent Crime Reduction Act and the laws governing RIFs, a lot of this has been largely untested, which makes it even more interesting.

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.

Then people like you do need to take companies like these to court over it and establish the precedents. Had the case against Gearbox been properly handled, things may well have turned out differently for the likes of Watch_Dogs.

Because for a start you can't verify my claims, any more than I can't verify what your claims,

You can phone Trading Standards up for free - They don't charge by the ¼-hour for their legal advice.

instead of engineeringAnd other terms should have been used to imply uncertainty with, ahem, certainly if that was the intention. Easily done without patronising the reader and the company can't be accused of trying to pull a fast one.

I won't at all deny that FD could have done a lot more to simplify and clarify the situation and have done themselves no favours by assuming everyone reads everything. In fact, I've said so already in an earlier post.

You were the one suggesting that you should bill them your legal and PR services as a joke. Not that I took it seriously, but on a whim I am decided to reply it would not be in their interest, if the impression this whole thing has left on me is anything to go by.

Being in the right from a legal perspective and having happy customers do not often go hand-in-hand. If I had any interest in the latter, I'd be working in marketing!

I also think that most gamers have nothing to gain from seeing a developer fail (I know I don't), so you'd need to get something quite wrong, legally or morally, to be called on.

Having seen some of the vehement refund demands that Rebellion got, simply for not having the cocking handle the exact shape on a rifle in Sniper Elite V2, I question what many gamers are picking holes over.

[Ttaskmaster]

This thread was, and still should be, about what to do when a company and/or PayPal refuses to refund you when they are refunding other customers.

In short - Demand to know *WHY*, since you have a right to know. Doubly so, if they are quite happily refunding other customers.

Ttaskmaster, you have said many times that FD haven't done anything wrong.

I have asserted that they have done nothing LEGALLY wrong.
Any other kind of wrong is outside the scope of my interest.

It has been shown several times in this thread alone that not only did they say "IT WILL BE POSSIBLE" (not probable) to play offline on their Kickstarter page, but David Braben himself posted on Reddit "YES" (not maybe) in response to a question about playing offline. Do you deny that these statements were made?

As I recall, whoever posted that here paraphrased his exact words, did they not?
Do you have a link to the reddit post in question, or the complete text withthe full context of the question being asked?

Whether or not this holds any legal ground is moot in my opinion because quite frankly what they have done is morally wrong, and part of the reason why I requested a refund in the first place.

Unfortunately that's not how the law works and the law is the only thing you can rely on to define whether you get a refund.
I'm not saying you shouldn't *try* for one in these circumstances because, as has been frequently proven, companies do like to please their customers and will often 'have a heart'. But you shouldn't go in expecting one unless you know the law is on your side.

FD's change AFTER I pre-purchased Elite saddened me enough to request a refund, something which I believe I was not wrong to do. If they didn't believe they did something wrong, then why were so many people refunded?

It is never wrong to ask... There are many other factors involved besides the law and if a company feels they have somehow done you a disservice then they often will find some kind of compensation.

As per their T&Cs:
Anyone who had preordered but not yet installed and used their final release copy of ED *was* entitled to a refund of that pre-order component.
Anyone who had paid the pre-release test fees and not used that access was also entitled to a refund of that component.
The case-by-case investigation of each potential refund was to ascertain for which part(s) each individual was entitled to have refunded.

[TooNice]

@Allen: My sympathies. I hadn't realised that this topic had already beaten to death in the news thread already. Having read that thead now, I know why so few bothered to chime in, and it really is a tiny minority who do not see a problem with it. Shame that you decided to play the game, a quick look at their forums does show a bunch of people getting their refund.. after a lot of waiting. FD is clearly trying to avoid it as much as they can get away, perhaps banking on people like you to give up.

At this point, I am not sure if there is anything you can do any more. For anyone else, it is worth it is probably worth being as tenacious as the poster above (it is the one thing I can give him credit for). Also, I stumbled across this - no idea if it is any good, but it might be worth a long shot for anyone looking for a refund: http://www.elitedangerousrefunds.org/about

Though I have never been in an unfortunate position where I had to make a claim with Paypal, I have gradually strayed away from it (it has been almost 1.5 years - much easier done in Japan) because I don't really trust them very much and your story reinforce that. As to FD, I had hoped that your story was a rare exception, but it seems far too common for me to overlook. Technically they seem to be issuing refunds but really doing the absolute bare minimums when they should have been forward and said "Sorry for the disappointment, we were convinced that this would have worked until fairly late in development, but it simply doesn't suit our vision. We hope that you will stick with us, as it is still going to be awesome, but we will issue a refund to anyone who pre-ordered and isn't satisfied with those changes" or something along those line. Yes they would have lost some sales, but not the good-will of prospective buyers now includes me.