Squicker
S
No. The transaction is in European jurisdiction so the law applies even if he lives in Timbuktu. Very important point about this law.
"Dangerous is definitely not for everyone - and that's a real strength" [Eurogamer]
- Thread starter Obsidian Ant
- Start date
No. The transaction is in European jurisdiction so the law applies even if he lives in Timbuktu. Very important point about this law.
Unfortunately, an Alpha, Beta or Early Access game is by definition 'half-finished'.
Whilst the law is a great addition to help with the rubbish that EA and Egosoft have recently put out, it is a hindrance to the independent studio that are funding development through Beta and Alpha access.
Squicker
S
This indeed may be true, as with many things in life what you get with one hand you give back with the other. But I tend to feel it's the consumer that's been the long-term loser in this one.
that is interesting to know,thanks, I wasnt aware of it.
If only this was in place when X-Rebirth was released.
Nope, all they have to do in the end is apply the law valid where the customer resides, which varies. Broad EULAS are usually full of unenforceable clauses, starting usually with "everything will be judged in California (Delaware being popular right now, too)" which doesn't hold for non residents of the USA. (most games being made in the USA)
Basically companies can put what they want in ToS, including me selling them my wife in slavery. It doesn't make anything valid. Abusive ToS are shot daily in court.
Squicker
S
I know! I actually managed to get a refund from Steam for X:R but I know most people did not succeed in doing so.
It's a tricky one because in the case we have here of ED, I think this is a good game that they are going through an early access process of and I think that FD want this game to be a success. With X:Rebirth, I really felt that they just fobbed off everyone with something that Egosoft knew was crap upon release. Sure, maybe there were commercial pressures at play, but nonetheless they knew that game was a turd on release day.
So as Granite says, rightfully catching dodgy people like Egosoft is going to make life harder for the indie devs like FD.
Squicker
S
Now, I have a feeling that you can transfer jurisdiction as you say but if in doing so you remove rights from the plaintiff, the jurisdiction change in the contract will be seen as invalid. In this case it would remove rights because those in the EU are the best in the world. You cannot lessen individual rights through abuse of a jurisdictional change. I say this because I recently won a £1300 suit against a USA supplier who tried this one on (not in the ToS but once the complaint arose) but my UK court said the change was not valid and it would be judged here under our Distance Selling laws early this year. And I had even paid in $$ on a US company site.
And I also think that a local court (say Delaware) would be reluctant to accept jurisdiction if it could be clearly shown jurisdiction is actually in the EU:
company home office
Currency used (crucial point)
server location (bit fluffy in our cloud world)
I think if we use the Frontier Dev example, a Delaware judge would say, "you are taking the ****, the buyer used £ to a UK registered Ltd company and you want a Delaware judge to rule?? **** off"
Last edited:
Absolutley, I felt like I had been duped after buying that, they were very crafty with the information they released before releasing the game.
FD could keep my money whether I like it or not, because I appreciate what they are doing and their communication with their backers has been first class, I like the way they work.
Squicker
S
Yeah absolutely, I believe FD are doing their best. And I think that the Eurogamer article backs that view up.
Thought I'd best mention that article as Faerie asked us to go back On topic ;-)
Last edited:
Interesting information about changes in EU law regarding refunds, have Steam for example have said anything on this?
If someone feels the game is not for him, and he complies with law (14 days, right), he should get refund. I don't want anyone feel a prisoner because of mistake regarding buying ED...even if he hasn't completely researched things before investment.
Regarding ontopic - didn't expect Eurogamer publish such insightful and beautifully written article, thumbs up for author.
If someone feels the game is not for him, and he complies with law (14 days, right), he should get refund. I don't want anyone feel a prisoner because of mistake regarding buying ED...even if he hasn't completely researched things before investment.
Regarding ontopic - didn't expect Eurogamer publish such insightful and beautifully written article, thumbs up for author.
So this right to refund only applies if you have not downloaded the product you bought? So if the website is up to date and I buy the beta as long as I don't download it I can cancel, but If I download it I would no longer be able to get a refund?
If that is the case it seems like this law does not help in the case of faulty goods, as you would need to download it first to find out it is faulty.
Have I understood that correctly?
Last edited:
Squicker
S
No. Satisfactory quality now definitely applies to digital goods. Previously it was applied to 'goods' as in tangibles and the likes of Steam wormed their way out of things by saying they were providing digital content (hence lots of people only bought boxed games). Basically Sale of Goods rights now unequivocally apply to digital content:
"Satisfactory quality: there will be an implied term that digital content will be of satisfactory quality, taking into account the content’s description, price and other relevant circumstances (including public statements, labelling and advertising). Digital content must also be fit for purpose, free from minor defects, safe and durable. Digital content will not be unsatisfactory as a result of things specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before contracting, which are revealed (or ought to be revealed) by the consumer examining the digital content, or where the consumer has benefited from a trial version which ought to make such a thing apparent."
Essentially the reason this law was drawn up was to make the already excellent protection applied to physical goods and services apply to digital content. So if you start from a position of imagining all the laws you already have (in the UK the Supply of Goods and Services and Distance Selling protections) apply to digital downloads, then you are probably right.
EDIT: The 14 day cancellation matter is part of the Distance Selling aspects. The fit for purpose argument will stand if you buy a buggy game from - say ED as an example but I have faith in them - then you can get refunded or ask they repair it. Same as if I sold you a defective hi-fi. You might first ask me to fix it but if I failed ask for a refund.
You know what'll happen with Steam...They'll ignore this law until someone digs their heels in then update their ToS, exactly as happened with EU Distance Selling Regs. If you look at the Steam EULA now it specifically states for EU buyers it's a 'service' and therefore the cancellation period expires as soon as you download. Now however, Steam MUST be bound by the fit for purpose stuff, and that was the main issue. Downloading unfit software that was not definitely covered as tangible goods, therefore Steam simply ignored the majority of people. I think I was very lucky to get a refund on X:R by quoting Distance Sellings regs at them.
Last edited:
Bolded the relevant part.
This would probably exclude Frontier from liability during the Beta process, because it's labelled as beta, and this is specifically drawn to the consumers attention by the name.
Squicker
S
Yes, I was thinking the same thing as I read that section again. I think that is a good thing because as Granite says, we don't want to hamper small indie developers from the sort of process FD are now in. That would hurt consumer choice in the long-term IMO.
I'm looking forward to the Linux port too. I'm concerned about ports to the weak console hardware of PS4/XB1, because you have to plan ahead already right now and make certain concession in the game design/implementation unless you want to develop two completely separate games (which obviously is much costly).
Thanks your edit answered my question, it's two separate areas then:
A right to cancel an order, up to 14 days after day of purchase, for any reason. As long as you have not downloaded/accessed the products in any way.
A "fit for purpose" rule now applies to software as well, meaning that if the goods are not as described you could ask for a refund.
Assuming I've got that right, thanks for clarifying.
Cheers
Well, for Linux port to be any good (another Linux user for 10 years here), driver case for it should be improved a lot. Current breed of binary and open source drivers support OpenGL 3.3 properly, but getting DX10/11 graphics you need 4.3. OS X newest version supports 4.1, so that's yay for a team "ED as good looking OpenGL game". Open source Nouveau and RadeonSI drivers are on their way to support 4.3 in nearest future, so fingers crossed.
PS4/XB1 regarding this have good enough hardware to run game and their driver parts are rock solid. So it actually makes a lot of sense if PS4 port for example would come first, right after PC and Mac versions.
Squicker
S
Yes, that's dead right. And the cancellation thing is derived from the Distance Selling of services legislation which has existed since October 2000. For example, you could not get BT to fit a phone line and then cancel on a whim 13 days later, because that would put them in an unfair position. So, provided the contract makes it clear, once a service starts (in this case a game being downloaded) the supplier can waive those rights within EU law. But they cannot get out of selling you a shoddy product.
So really I think this is fair for both parties and is an example of well written legislation.