EA refuses to refund and threatens ban

[onosendai7]

If they weren't refusing refunds, I don't think people would be threatening chargebacks.

I've a mixed view on chargebacks for this - I fully agree that, if they get hit with a chargeback, a company is within its rights to stop any further service to that customer. So banning access to the customer's Origin account seems justified. But then there's the big question of why should a customer NEED "further service" for games they bought several years ago? So it all becomes wrong again.

I would agree with you if only 1 game was handled through Origin. Since ALL the games you buy from EA are linked to your account, that means that you can't play those games. So, the question remains : do I buy a game or do I rent a game ?
More, there is only one service / game, that is defective. Everything else is fine. So, they should be deprived of every services and games provided by Origin just because 1 game is faulty. I can not agree with that (or they refund everything up to the last coin).

 

[dragonbird]

When a product is defective, you must be refund (according to French Law).
Anyone ready to sue EA for the price of the game ?

I've been searching for how the legislation works in different countries regarding this (not out of personal interest, just curiosity,because I'm like that on legal stuff).

I know that it isn't the same across all EU countries, but the general impression I got is that for faulty products, the retail outlet MUST resolve it, with refund, replacement or some other mutually-agreed solution (the emphasis on mutually-agreed). For faulty service, there may or may not be a requirement to give the supplier 14 days to resolve the problem - I'm fuzzy on the details.

And the right to expect a contract to be fulfilled exists pretty well everywhere. But in countries (including EU countries) that have consumer-protection legislation, the whole point is to remove the cost-barrier of having to take them to court, the state should be the one enforcing it on the consumers' behalf.

I would agree with you if only 1 game was handled through Origin. Since ALL the games you buy from EA are linked to your account, that means that you can't play those games. So, the question remains : do I buy a game or do I rent a game ?
More, there is only one service / game, that is defective. Everything else is fine. So, they should be deprived of every services and games provided by Origin just because 1 game is faulty. I can not agree with that (or they refund everything up to the last coin).

I totally agree with you. Which means that even if they're legally entitled to refuse future service because of chargebacks, if they choose to interpret this as meaning they can lock players out of their Origin accounts, they're really driving home the messge "You Own Nothing". A good way of shooting themselves in the foot as far as PR is concerned.

 

[netra]

This isn't just an EA thing tho. Valve has banned users in the past for similar reasons.

 

[dragonbird]

This isn't just an EA thing tho. Valve has banned users in the past for similar reasons.

My understanding was that Valve had stopped, but the same applies.
If a game is genuinely unfit for purpose at the time of purchase (which does NOT include "buyer didn't read/understand the minimum specs", "buyer doesn't like it", "has some bugs", whatever), then they should be entitled to a refund. Any alternative solution should be mutually-agreed.
If the retailer won't provide a refund, the customer should be entitled to process a chargeback.
If there's a chargeback, the retailer has the right to do refuse to do any NEW business with the customer.
The retailer should not have the right to prevent access to previously-purchased games, unless there is a legitimate argument that ongoing service is a requirement for the game. Stand-alone, single-user games that can be played offline don't meet the "legitimate argument" test.

 

[netra]

Have they?

3. BILLING, PAYMENT AND OTHER SUBSCRIPTIONS

ALL CHARGES INCURRED ON STEAM, AND ALL PURCHASES MADE WITH THE STEAM WALLET, ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, REGARDLESS OF THE PAYMENT METHOD, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT.

IF YOU ARE AN EU SUBSCRIBER YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM A PURCHASE TRANSACTION FOR DIGITAL CONTENT WITHOUT CHARGE AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON UNTIL DELIVERY OF SUCH CONTENT HAS STARTED OR PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE HAS COMMENCED. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM A TRANSACTION OR OBTAIN A REFUND ONCE DELIVERY OF THE CONTENT HAS STARTED OR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE HAS COMMENCED, AT WHICH POINT YOUR TRANSACTION IS FINAL. YOU AGREE THAT DELIVERY OF DIGITAL CONTENT, AND THE ASSOCIATED SUBSCRIPTION, AND/OR PERFORMANCE OF THE ASSOCIATED SERVICE, COMMENCES AT THE MOMENT THE DIGITAL CONTENT IS ADDED TO YOUR ACCOUNT OR INVENTORY OR OTHERWISE MADE ACCESSIBLE TO YOU FOR DOWNLOAD OR USE.

 

[dragonbird]

I don't know - but my opinion is still the same, regardless of whether it's EA or Valve.

 

[netra]

I don't know - but my opinion is still the same, regardless of whether it's EA or Valve.

Which is fine but it's not the reality of the situation. We could discuss what should or shouldn't be right until either of us dies of old age but the quick solution would be and that counts for everyone: please for the love of god read the terms before accepting them. Because they write them. And if people like the one in the screenshot the OP posted would have done so they wouldn't be in this situation and we , meaning you and me DB wouldn't be arguing about this nonsense. And in my case i wouldnt be up at 6 in the morning reading through luxembourgish sale laws ("You agree that this Agreement shall be deemed to have been made and executed in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and that it is subject to the laws of Luxembourg, excluding the law of conflicts and the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)." - Steam subscriber agreement Section 11 )
Because damn it, you know I can't help myself when it comes to fact-checking. D:

 

[Sardukhar]

I wasn't going to say ANYthing in this thread, but really, Netra? Read the Terms of Use? NO ONE DOES THAT. Even if you tried - I have - it's nearly impenetrable. You fall asleep half way through. Not to mention some of those terms aren't even enforceable depending on jurisdiction and it's Charter of Rights or Bills or whatever.

Attempting to abrogate consumer's rights by having them agree to something they don't understand after they've purchased the product but before they've installed it..yeah. Try that in other industries. I'd love to try that on my customers. Only I wouldn't have any.

Now...now I must flee this thread!

 

[gregski]

YOU AGREE THAT DELIVERY OF DIGITAL CONTENT, AND THE ASSOCIATED SUBSCRIPTION, AND/OR PERFORMANCE OF THE ASSOCIATED SERVICE, COMMENCES AT THE MOMENT THE DIGITAL CONTENT IS ADDED TO YOUR ACCOUNT OR INVENTORY OR OTHERWISE MADE ACCESSIBLE TO YOU FOR DOWNLOAD OR USE.

Haha, that's a good one.

So, I can withdraw from a purchase before they add the game to my library, which is like, you know, right after the payment is processed. No shit.

 

[dragonbird]

I don't really think Netra and I are that far apart. Netra thinks (I think?) that people should read the EULAs and, presumably, not buy if they're unreasonable. I'd agree with that, it's just that I also think that in many countries, those EULAs would prove to be unenforceable if someone would actually have the balls to test them in court.

Probably not in my country though, so I'm going to stick with the "don't buy from EA" solution.

 

[onosendai7]

No one reads the EULA. A few read them, fewer understand them.

On February 2013, Valve was sued by consumers associations about the right to sell used games (EEC court). Time will tell what the outcome is, but the court has already ruled in a previous trial that used software may be re-sold by the owner (the consumer) even if the right holders disagree / forbid. You may find the judgement here (in French )
I believe however that some parts of the EULA are downright abuses and contradict local Law. For instance, do you remember the PSN EULA requiring you to forsake your right to sue Sony ?

 

[onosendai7]

the general impression I got is that for faulty products, the retail outlet MUST resolve it, with refund, replacement or some other mutually-agreed solution (the emphasis on mutually-agreed). For faulty service, there may or may not be a requirement to give the supplier 14 days to resolve the problem - I'm fuzzy on the details.

You're right. An agreement may be found and everyone is happy.
However, in France (I don't know for the other countries) the law protects the buyers, not the sellers, and you have a 7 day delay to ask for a total refund on any thing bought (if you give it back in good shape, of course) because you're simply not satisfied with it, it does not meet your expectation, or is definitly faulty. This is generally applied to ordered goods delivered at home, because you may not test them when you buy them.

 

[dragonbird]

RPS latest article. I think I may be starting to like RPS again.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/11/simcity-is-inherently-broken-lets-not-let-this-go/

To see anyone defending EA and Maxis for the state of SimCity, even were it in perfect working order on launch, depresses me to my core. This self-flagellation-as-skincare notion, where gamers loudly and proudly defend the destruction of their own rights as consumers, is an Orwellian perversity. That it might be considered in any way controversial to call them out on their crap, to point out that no, always-on DRM is not an advantage to anyone, is bewildering. It’s a sign of just how far the gaming world has fallen into the rabbit hole of the publisher’s burrowing.

And from techdirt, quoting Business Insider...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130308/17332722270/avid-gamer-minnesota-vikings-punter-chris-kluwe-does-math-how-much-eas-simcity-debacle-cost-ea.shtml

Many have demanded refunds from Amazon (and received them), and many more are lining up at Origin to get their money back. EA is taking a hard line on refunding digital sales, which is only going to hurt it in the long run. It might be able to push back here in the US, but overseas (the market it's currently underserving launching in) generally has stronger consumer protections, which makes its no-refund-on-digital-sales policy null and void.

In addition, more than 1,000 negative reviews are doing even reputational damage at Amazon, which has decided to stop handing out refunds, not by screwing customers, but by pulling the digital version from its shelves.

 

[onosendai7]

"Beyond the bad math, the inadequate customer service, the decision to make the game even worse until the servers can keep up with the demand, is EA's refusal to allow customers to own the product they purchased. By keeping enough of the code running only on its servers, no SimCity purchaser can ever claim they own the game. All they own is a key to the door. EA still owns the house. And once EA decides the house is no longer worth living in, 5 or 10 years down the road, even the key will be worthless."

This seems important. Be happy, we rent games now ...

 

[dragonbird]

And, despite the fact that metacritic doesn't revise downward when a review is revised, they're still sitting at 70% on the "official" score. That's the one that affects bonuses, isn't it? I just hope it affects EA executive bonuses and not just the Maxis staff.

 

[Sunder]

And, despite the fact that metacritic doesn't revise downward when a review is revised, they're still sitting at 70% on the "official" score. That's the one that affects bonuses, isn't it? I just hope it affects EA executive bonuses and not just the Maxis staff.

Don't be silly. Executives never get affected by this, only the people that actually make the games do.

Only company that I know of where their executives were actually business savvy people is Nintendo. When the 3DS wasn't doing too good, they made the price cut, but to make up for that price cut their executives took chunks out of their paychecks to make up for it rather than make the rank and file be the sacrificial lambs. And they apologized for it.

 

[dragonbird]

Well, EA executives will obviously blame the gamers, Maxis, the evil reviewers for not being fair, the weather, Amazon and probably aliens from outer space. But some of the shit will probably still land on them. I agree though, not enough.

 

[onosendai7]

Nope, the'll blame pirates.

 

[Sunder]

PC pirates. Because we all know it's impossible to pirate on consoles.

/sarcasm

 

[blank_redge]

Well, EA executives will obviously blame the gamers, Maxis, the evil reviewers for not being fair, the weather, Amazon and probably aliens from outer space. But some of the shit will probably still land on them. I agree though, not enough.

Need to distribute a bunch of Guy Fawkes masks to the Sim City fanbase.

Occupy EA, anyone? =D