We are unable to refund mistaken purchases, and/or if you don't like the game
nintendo.co.uk
nintendo.co.uk
Abusing language to make it seem like there is some hard barrier to you performing some task really annoys me.
They clearly are able (and in some jurisdictions will be compelled) to refund purchases, they are just expressing their desire for you to go fk yourself.
This isn't a "can't do", it's a "we don't want to do" situation.
"We are unable to provide refunds or exchanges for mistaken purchases" becomes "Refunds or exchanges for mistaken purchases are unable to be provided."
[1] https://www.ranker.com/list/times-politicians-used-passive-v...
> The suspect produced a semi-automatic handgun and fired numerous times striking the victim in the torso.
> The suspect then ran towards the officers still armed with the sword and an officer-involved-shooting occurred.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/...
Like, this is a well-known enough thought process that the person I responded to had already felt a need to dig into this themselves before, only they dug into it wrong as a misinterpretation of the claim. Where I'd say we currently stand is thereby "seems like a credible hypothesis worthy of discussion". If anything, I can see a more useful way to ding the original claim here -- based on my knowledge of this ongoing discussion -- but it isn't to whine about how they should have already needed to provide evidence in their initial post, and nor certainly is it "I found a bunch of counter examples".
But even that seems like a non-sequitur as the interesting thing here clearly wasn't an attempt to sideline us into a discussion about police but was instead just an attempt to make a wider discussion about annoying usage of passive voice and other language shenanigans to avoid directly admitting blame or control -- which is an entirely fair point and I will strongly claim is a fully valid thing to be discussing and criticizing of this statement by Nintendo -- and while I could see reasonably pushing back on it in that light in a ton of ways, again: that set doesn't include whining about citations during a discussion and likely doesn't include defenses of oblique rebuttals :(.
IANAL, but including in the UK I believe, which this FAQ purports to serve.
https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesse...
(Seems to originate with the EU, but I thought it was much older, intending to cover mail order at first. I can't find reference to what it replaced if that's the case though.)
https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesse...
exactly that.
language is the way to control the brain. By making language passive, they make the reader passive, and make them avoid thinking about the subject. By calling it "unable", they make the reason un-askable.
When a company simply chooses not to do something, they often use 致しません。When they use 出来ません it would mean not possible (eg unable to ship an order due to time constraints) or because they want to pretend it’s too difficult and unreasonable of a request.
You go from the ease of slapping in a cartridge to navigating thier downloadable content--it feels like getting hit by a brick wall.
Older people and the disabled, good luck using their system. I got tired of mucking with it and simply stopped playing games on the Switch. Remarkably clunky--reminds me of Jira.
This bit of news is no surprise at all--they are basically refusing to deal with a problem they created. Sad.
We can provide a remedy if the game or DLC fails to meet a consumer guarantee under the Australian Consumer Law in Australia or the Consumer Guarantees Act in New Zealand. Details of Australian consumers’ rights under the Australian Consumer Law can be found at www.consumerlaw.gov.au. Details of New Zealand consumers’ rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act can be found at www.consumerprotection.govt.nz.
When you buy video games from Valve Corporation as a consumer located in Australia, the video games come with guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law that cannot be excluded, including a guarantee that the video games are of acceptable quality. You are entitled to a replacement or refund from the retail supplier of the video games for a major failure and for compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the video games repaired or replaced by the retail supplier of the video games if the video games fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major failure. Certain other rights are available directly against manufacturers that cannot be excluded or limited.Updated after your update: In this case I think we can assume "acceptable quality" has already been established by Nintendo's QA department. Its not an open store after all.
The Nintendo online market pretty much has no oversight anymore. They don't do any careful pruning of shovelware these days.
https://legendsoflocalization.com/this-be-bad-translation-19...
NES games often had some pretty rough translations, but I can't think of a single game in that era that was this garbled.
If you take a game back to a major retailer like Target or Big W, they won't accept it with the seal broken unless you tell them there is something wrong with the physical disk or cartage. They won't accept a return if you just tell them you didn't like it. (in my experience - also not an expert on this either)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtanhZvjcM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFJwO7AbfCk
They've actually published games with Nintendo before, so they discuss how such terrible games were allowed on the shop in the second video
Would that experience have been different if I wasn't an Australian?
The usual refund conditions are “less than two hours of play, within two weeks of purchase.”
There should be some sliding scale where you can make a great 2 hour or less game without the risk of infinite refunding (perhaps the game could be marked with a "half-way" point, etc, though that would involve the shop actually playing it).
Ironically because speed-running requires a lot of practice this often means purchasing two copies of the game - the first to practice with, and the second to be (potentially) refunded!
Not much you can do - if the machines decide you don't get a refund, well, then you don't. I haven't bought anything on Steam since.
0. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...
I bought 2 copies of a game advertising co-op to play with a friend, only to discover it's local-only. (Steam didn't have separate "local/remote play/online co-op" labels yet) I opened a ticket and they refunded me as a "one time exception".
They refunded my game after a short and polite message without any fuzz. I said thanks by buying a different game instead. Shame for the dev yes, but it was already an older one, that the developers moved on from years ago, so I didn't felt too bad about that.
I suppose I could have invested time to diagnose the original issue (drivers, OS upgrades, etc). But, it was good to see that Steam just refunded without insisting it was an issue on my end (which, it may well have been, given the disparity of Linux systems).
Just look at the joycon debacle which they refused to acknowledge or honour, very much Apple way of it's your fault.
(not to say they don't make good products)
Nintendo replaced my out of warranty broken Joycons for free btw.
I think that's the key point there. They have a history of making some amazing games, and still continue to do so to some extent. But their business practices in recent years have been, quite simply, abysmal. Stuff like not doing refunds at all (unless they're forced to by law), and also them guarding their intellectual property like their lives depend on it even when this is detrimental to their own business model (remember when they took a cut out of YouTubers making videos of their games leading to many just not bothering, and Nintendo losing out on publicity?)
I'm not much of a gamer anymore but I still enjoy playing them from time to time. I just feel like the gaming industry has being getting worse, and worse. Games are so monetized now that some are now borderline (or ought to be considered) gambling. At least there is still some amazing creativity coming from independent development studios.
In their defense, games have gotten an incredible amount larger and more complicated without adjusting the price of the games since the 90's. We're effectively paying half the price we would have in the 90's due to inflation.
I don't know that people would buy them at inflation-adjusted prices. Adjusted from the early 90s, a game would now cost ~$120. And that's discounting the difference in development costs. The latest Call of Duty had a budget of $250M; Ocarina of Time had a budget of $12M, which is ~$21M after adjusting for inflation.
I don't love the direction either, but they have to make money somewhere.
I agree that people probably wouldn't buy games at inflation-adjusted prices. People would find it hillarious if a company came forward, and offered a base game at $120 (although we do sometimes see games with addons that cost this much; the Assassin's Creed Valhalla Complete Edition costs nearly £120 (British pounds) but this comparison comes with the caveat that this includes stuff that wasn't in the original base game.) But if micro transactions are considered the consequence of having high-budget games then, frankly, I don't want them. As I said, there are still some incredible games made by independent studios, and these games are often made at a fraction of the price of their AAA counterparts.
I suppose I can't complain too much because my solution is just not to buy, and sink money into high-budget games, and just opt for the smaller budget games.
I bought a new switch with 4 joycon controllers. A year later, 2 were unusable (the sticks drift), a third one with slight but acceptable drift.
On the other hand, I have 4 xbox 360 controllers from 10 years ago that are still perfectly usable.
I sent nintendo an email, they only offered to replace them at a cost, and I would have to send the console in as well, which may be wiped.
Buying new joycons was also not an option, given a (seemingly) >50% chance that they would be unusable within less than a year.
Now, I use a mayflash ns stick (incredible product! https://www.mayflash.com/Support/showdownload.php?id=34 ), to use my 360 controllers wirelessly in the switch (with a xbox wireless receiver that I also use for PC https://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Xbox-Wireless-Receiver-Wind...)
I find this entire situation absurd.
---
(I think companies underestimate the fallout from such things because it is so subtle: nintendo sells you an experience, they create the game, the console, and the controller - everyone in my household now subtly associates the nintendo experience with frustration, "I just died because link moved by himself! That's bull**!". Multiplied by the amount of households affected, what is the true effect on Nintendo's brand over the 5 years that the switch is the flagship? And they STILL don't offer a fixed joycon version.)
CRC Precision Electronics Parts Cleaner
Its electronics parts cleaner spray that pretty instantly and cleanly evaporates. Solved my drift problem with one use and have never had another problem.
Indeed, please do look instead of blindly repeating falsehood. Nintendo is repairing joycons for free, as many times as needed. Inconvenient, but that is not “refused to acknowledge or honour”.
If you grew up playing Nintendo games, the best games on the market at the time, you'll excuse and forgive a lot. Nintendo was the toy in the house, even surpassing LEGO.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesse...
Imho this is sharp business practice and one of the reasons I still buy physical video games.
If there are any lawyers lurking, can this refund policy be circumvented if purchasing with a Credit Card under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act? I'm assuming you'd need to somehow prove it wasn't what you expected (accidental purchase)?
https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesse...
> [You must] take reasonable steps to let customers correct errors in their order
That should cover accidental purchases at the very least.
Issue a chargeback. Cause them more problems.
I liked that store.
Also, issue à chargeback to Steam, Apple, Microsoft, Google and you will also be banned for life
Maybe it would be better to mandate better customer service. Stopping companies from banning those who do chargebacks is wrong solution to the problem.
I used to sit next to a compliance department at a card servicer and it was Google, Google, Google all day long, every day. Charge backs from the play store. Very costly for servicers to man call centers to process a constant stream of charge back requests from these companies. Nevermind the cost of the actual refund.
Chargebacks are not an effective consumer protection tool when using it can get you banned. Doubly so when the company is the exclusive provider of a good (e.g. app stores), or when the company is a majority of national eCommerce (i.e. Amazon).
There is something properly cathartic about submitting a claim after a pointless back and forth with some customer support agent regarding these matters.
You may also find more success by mentioning that you will be performing a charge back if the interaction does not conclude to your satisfaction up-front.
At some level, every business cares about this way more than your $100 purchase. Too many charge backs can cripple your ability to operate as fees increase and processors drop your ass.
yeah nah, that doesnt fly in countries with consumer protections, no EULA or TOS has power to void your rights
You have a right to be able to return online purchases within 14 days in EU, but you can lose/waive that right for digital purchases, under the same law that gives you that right.
Even though this is Nintendo UK, I'm pretty sure this is what they are referring to.
It's obvious that they don't want to provide refunds, not that they can't, and that they're trying to mislead consumers into believing that it is some technical issue preventing them not avarice.
It's not exactly apples to apples but I've experienced the opposite effect with Costco where due to their refund policies I'm much more willing to make impulse purchases and to try things I'm unsure of.
It's interesting to wonder what the net outcome would be if they ate that cost in exchange for making customers feel safe taking a chance on more games.
Nintendo's ecosystem is the most closed down and money mongering machine I had a pleasure to use.
"When you purchase digital content in Nintendo eShop, at the time of your purchase, you consent to Nintendo beginning with the performance of its obligations immediately, before the cancellation period ends, and you acknowledge that you will thereby lose your right to cancel at that point."
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/83/2022-05-28
Vague English summary here (the Sample story simply says "the 14 day cooling off period doesn't apply to concert ticket purchases" which seems insufficiently precise).
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/gua...
For digital goods, the legislation states:
——
Under a contract for the supply of digital content not on a tangible medium, the trader must not begin supply of the digital content before the end of the cancellation period provided for in regulation 30(1), unless—
(a)the consumer has given express consent, and
(b)the consumer has acknowledged that the right to cancel the contract under regulation 29(1) will be lost.
——
Therefore, Nintendo is stating that the 14-day cancellation period is to be waived, and digital goods are to be deemed as supplied immediately upon purchase.
They have automated system in place where after purchase the key is hopefully allocated, but hidden. And in EU and UK as this was remote purchase you have standard 14-day return window. Now you can reveal the key by accepting a pop-up that you forgo this return right. Which makes sense as it is digital one time key...
Now faulty products are a fun mess...
> Q: Why is the digital vignette valid from the 18th day after purchase at the earliest when purchased in the Toll Shop?
> A: For consumers, the digital vignette or the digital section toll annual card cannot be used immediately after purchase. This also means, however, that you can edit your product before the start of the validity period without having to give any reasons (registration number, validity period).
> This restriction does not apply to companies. The reason for this is that, according to the European Consumer Protection Directive, consumers have the right to withdraw from the online purchase of a product or service within 14 days. As this withdrawal is possible by e-mail and by post, a further three days are allowed for cancellation by post until arrival at ASFINAG.
https://shop.asfinag.at/en/maut-produkte/digitale-vignette/0...
But purchases on eShop queue up a download immediately (as opposed to Sony's "download now" button), so I don't know how that period can "exist". Maybe you have a case if all of your Nintendo devices are offline at the time or something.
* Contracts may have some cancellation period associated with them. You and I have entered a contract where I renovate your kitchen, and in exchange you pay me. I have you on the calendar in three months. If you change your mind in the next month, you can cancel the contract at no penalty.
* Two weeks later, I call you back and ask if you'd like me to start immediately. Somebody else canceled, and I have an opening in the schedule. You agree, and so I start the renovations.
* Another week passes, and the renovations are complete. But we're only three weeks into the original month-long cancelation period, so you slyly say that you'd like to cancel with no penalty. I could say that since I had begun the performance of my obligations, the cancellation period ended early.
So, I can understand where the concepts would come in. What makes no sense whatsoever is to have a cancellation period that ends at the same moment that the cancellation period starts. In the example, the cancellation period ended based on a follow-up choice. In Nintendo's wording, it seems like an attempt to negate any cancellation period whatsoever, because it would be created and dismissed within the same contract.
There is a waiver that vendors can require customers to accept for various types of purchase, such as digital purchases, on the grounds that there’s no need for the goods to be inspected, or that “inspecting” the goods is so indistinguishable from “using the goods” that the 14 day period makes no sense.
Here, Nintendo are saying “our obligations under this contract are being met immediately, not after you’ve had 14 days to inspect and accept the goods”.
Believe it or not, I was actually able to get a refund!
It's to the point where I would not be surprised if there are lawyers and judges who play emulated Nintendo games.
In this particular case, the cost to the vendor of expensing merchandise is negligible because it is digital. If it was physical, or time & place, the conversation would be a little different.
In many european countries a child can only buy something if the parents agree.
I as a father just would tell Nintendo to reimburse because I didn't agree with my child's purchase, give them some time then start a charge-back.
If they are upfront to the why, people would be more understanding.
More News at 11.
In my region they don't even allow buying any games online, you insensitive clod!
Whatever happened to the wonderful company Yokoi Gunpei made toys at?
https://kotaku.com/evangelion-creator-predicts-the-death-of-...
I'm sincerely hoping the kids are still alright!
http://blog.beforemario.com/p/nintendo-before-mario.html
I would fight in bloody wars for a competent, "modern Famicom" with a sort of Mario Paint Forever built in.
What's the point here?
I love that the kid game company is the one with the biggest nuts on this
I think consumer's advocacy groups should look into that.