Hacker News Reader

Comment by chii | Hacker News Reader

whitebox goods have set plenty of precedents for such reasoning - if it works as advertised, then you can't return it simply because you didn't like what it did (or its looks etc, or that it didn't fit your cabinet/spacing etc). It has to be defective, or didn't perform the full range of functions that is advertised.

For a video game, i'd assume that as long as the game ran (no crashing etc), and the game has all the elements that is advertised, you can't return it for a refund.

A good example was no man's sky. I would say it's refund-worthy, since they advertised that it is possible to multiplayer, and meet other people.

View on HN

See my comment above;

> if the request is made within fourteen days of purchase, and the title has been played for less than two hours

Purpose of games, is entertainment.

2 hours should be enough for you to decide if the game was worth it or not.

Let's say the average game gives you 40 hours of entertainment. (Bit arbitrary, granted.)

2 hours would be 5% of it's total lifespan.

Sounds reasonable?

40 hours is not a good guess at a game's play time. Many indie games are around 4h long. I've played a story game that was only 2 hours long

> Sounds reasonable?

Not under the Australian consumer law. We’re (rightly) quite proud of the level of protection it affords consumers.

2 hours should be enough for you to decide if the game was worth it or not.

This seems to be straying off-topic. The question isn't whether it was worth the price paid. The question is does it violate consumer protection laws vis-a-vis does it do what they said it would.

Sounds reasonable?

It does not. Applying a uniform hard limit to the full range of all possible games seems unreasonable. Practical, but not reasonable.

Let's also say there's a show-stopping bug that kills your save at hour 37.

You might have enjoyed the game, but due to its broken nature, you are still entitled to a refund under Australian Consumer Rights.

Just to back up my statement above with actual ACCC advice:

"it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it" is considered a "major" problem with the product.

Would bad PC-Ports with a ruined UI qualify to that?

That depends on the advertising for the PC platform.

If "it is significantly different from the sample or description" or "it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it" or "it doesn’t do what the business said it would, or what you asked for and can’t easily be fixed." Then yes, it would qualify.

So a bad port that still used the same graphics from the original platform to advertise could be an issue. Or if it contained show-stopping bugs, it could be a problem. Or if the business drops features after you purchase.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com