back to article Australia deflates Valve with Steam sueball

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has fired the sueball-gun at Valve, accusing the game-maker of trying to dodge Australian consumer law. The consumer watchdog has announced a filing in the Australian Federal Court, in response to terms and conditions it says violate Australian consumer laws. In its …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When you are just renting a non-physical software media, how does one issue refunds? There is nothing to return and one could play the game and then just ask for a refund.

    1. Nate Amsden

      isn't that what Steam's DRM is for? revoke access to the title. I've only played a couple steam titles (both of which I bought on physical DVD), but I can't play them unless Steam is logged in and up to date (and I never play online).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        But you used it though. If someone played the game for 20 hours, should they be able to demand their money back afterwards? With a subscription, if you don't use it, you still pay for it. If you buy 1000 minutes of mobile service and only use 250, you don't go and ask for a refund.

    2. Thorne

      A better question is how Australian law can be applied to a business that isn't in Australia?

      Mind you I agree with the ACCC but it's the whole local law being applied to a foreign company.

      Personally I don't care about the refund as I'm a cheapskate and the most I've paid on Steam is $16 and my time trying to get a refund is worth more than that.

      1. cmgangrel

        As far as I am aware, they are charging Australian customers in Australian Dollers; so someone would have to think that there would be *some* Australian laws that they would have to comply with. So even though they are a foreign company, they would still have to follow *local* laws.

        Valve can *quite easily* block the sale of games to Australians if they so desire. And if they are including local sales taxes into the price of the game, then I would say that they *should* be following consumer laws as well...

        1. Tim Bates

          "As far as I am aware, they are charging Australian customers in Australian Dollers;"

          Nope. US dollars. We get special regional pricing though - some things are up top 5 times the USA price.

          1. P. Lee

            >We get special regional pricing though - some things are up top 5 times the USA price.

            I understand that isn't Valve, that's the game publisher. Yes Bethesda, I'm looking at you, but I'm not buying from you.

      2. P. Lee

        >A better question is how Australian law can be applied to a business that isn't in Australia?

        I suspect there are steam caches in Oz. The government can hit company anyone doing business them.

    3. LaeMing
      Boffin

      Well, for broken or otherwise 'unfit' goods, one presumes the game would have to be provably sufficiently unplayable or varient to advertised expectations to pass the definition (which numerous games have proved to be over the decades).

      For un-wanted items, if the packaging (DRM) is unopened (never-activated) that should be fair evidence of not having played it.

      I don't think Valve (or any other software supplier) is being asked anything unreasonable here.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Then why did you buy it? Since it is all an online transaction, if you were unsure that you want it, wait until you know for sure and than buy it.

  2. poopypants

    Refunds are only sought for games that are not fit for purpose (i.e. don't run)

    Steam tracks the number of hours played for each game in your library.

    If these records show that you have been playing the game for more than an hour, then your claim that the game does not work would be weak. If however you were not able to launch it (faulty goods - not fit for purpose) then your claim would be much stronger. In that case they should grant a refund in keeping with Australian law (and presumably disable the game in your library).

    The fact that they do not already do this for all their customers reflects badly on them.

    1. veti Silver badge

      Re: Refunds are only sought for games that are not fit for purpose (i.e. don't run)

      Unfortunately, the definition of "fit for purpose" isn't quite that clear-cut.

      What if I start up a game that's designed to take 200 hours to play through, and precisely 1 hour in, it crashes? I try again, with the same result. And again.

      Now I've got 3 hours of play logged on the game, but it's still pretty clearly not working. For some reason. That reason is more likely something to do with my own computer/configuration rather than the game itself, but either way I might feel justified in claiming a refund.

      1. P. Lee

        Re: Refunds are only sought for games that are not fit for purpose (i.e. don't run)

        I suspect someone picked up a "still in development" game and doesn't like it.

        However, an up front "no refunds under any circumstances" is quite aggressive.

        1. Crisp

          Re: Refunds are only sought for games that are not fit for purpose (i.e. don't run)

          The "still in development" games are a bit hit and miss. Don't Starve was totally awesome, but some of the others are next to totally unplayable.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Refunds are only sought for games that are not fit for purpose (i.e. don't run)

          Unless they're being pressured into this stance by the publishers. In which case, Valve can either acquiesce or watch as they either go to a rival service or roll their own. As for Australian law, this is where e-commerce gets tricky because you now have a scenario where buyer and seller are in two different sovereign states and never have to leave either one to communicate: including ports of exit and entry where customs would normally be applied.

      2. Tim Bates

        Re: Refunds are only sought for games that are not fit for purpose (i.e. don't run)

        "What if I start up a game that's designed to take 200 hours to play through, and precisely 1 hour in, it crashes? I try again, with the same result. And again."

        Simple - they check your session lengths aswell. I went through the refund process with Steam a few years back over a game that was basically a bad console port (and infected with GFWL for added fun). Among other issues, GFWL kept wanting to install updates for the game and it kept just loading then quitting to run a GFWL updater. Steam support said they confirmed my story of many short sessions, and issued the refund.

  3. dan1980

    Regardless of exactly when and under what circumstances software might qualify for a refund, this case is 100% clear-cut. If you sell goods* in Australia, then those goods are covered by implied conditions and guarantees that cannot be disclaimed. More to the point, it is a breach of consumer law to attempt to disclaim these rights or to mislead consumers into thinking that they do not apply.

    Very specifically, even the basic overview on the ACCC website states:

    "Signs that state ‘No refunds’ are unlawful.

    The following signs are also unlawful:

    * ‘No refunds on sale items’

    * ‘Exchange or credit note only for the return of sale items’."

    The question of exactly how one might seek redress for faulty software under Australia Consumer Law is of course still an open question and one suspects there would be a lot of back and forward until a test case had been established. But, the how is not important here - Valve have breached Australian Consumer Law by telling Australian consumers that they do not have a right that the law expressly grants them.

    If you are selling to Australians, you need to understand the laws involved in that. Given that even the basic overview makes this particular requirement abundantly clear, there really is no excuse.

    On a related note, it is also a breach of the law for a vendor/retailer to tell consumers that they must deal with the manufacturer directly. This means that Valve could not tell customers that faulty software was not their problem and that they must take it up with the developers instead.

    * - Recent clarifications to Australian consumer law explicitly state that software is considered a 'good' for these purposes.

    1. Charles 9

      Wouldn't Valve counter, like they do in the US, that the transactions are considered leases and not sales, and therefore not subject to consumer rights protections (refund guarantees in Australia, first sale in the US, etc.)?

      1. dan1980

        If you lease a DVD from the local store and it doesn't play, are you not entitled to a refund?

        But regardless, that is the point of explicitly defining software as 'goods' for the purpose of these laws.

        It's all quite amusing, however - on one hand they (the video game industry in general) will claim that this doesn't represent a real 'sale' for the purpose of their liability but on the other they will scream long and loud that unauthorised copying of the software is out-and-out theft, akin to and just as serious as stealing a car.

        More cake!

    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge
      Thumb Up

      "Valve have breached Australian Consumer Law by telling Australian consumers that they do not have a right that the law expressly grants them."

      A big thumbs up to a legal system that prohibits this. In my experience, *most* EULAs and similar "agreements" are worded along the lines of "Your local law may override some of the following terms and conditions, but we aren't going to tell you which. Agree now, or else the deal's off.". This makes the EULA as a whole more an act of bullying rather than an agreement.

  4. nematoad
    Unhappy

    Quick!

    The Australian authorities had better get their skates on.

    When the TPP is finally unveiled to its victims it may contain clauses enforcing Valve's stance on refunds. Who knows?

    After all Valve is, by the way the negotiations have been conducted, in a far better position to know what TPP contains than most people, probably even sections of the government.

  5. i like crisps
    Trollface

    Dear Skippy...

    ...just get on with it and BLOCK the American imperialist dogs, will you!

    Best wishes,

    Mr Nintendo

  6. Gordon861

    What Steam/Valve should do is set up a system to allow you sell on any game in your library for a fixed $5 admin fee.

    With the DRM allowing the game to be removed from your library and added to someone elses there should be few problems and they would make a fair bit of money on secondhand sales.

    1. dan1980

      No, they should do it for free.

      Apart from the fact that the process would be automated and thus cost them nothing in the first place, it would be a great incentive to get people who might otherwise 'pirate' games onto the system so as to get freebies from their friends/family.

      Once they're on, they're more likely to buy a game or two.

  7. Rob 44

    Must agree

    Steams no refunds under any circumstances is a bit harsh whatever way you look at it.

    Take the play store for android. If I purchase an app and within 15 minutes find out its not suitable for purpose or is of no actual value to me, I can uninstall the app and get a refund. I think this should be the case with Steam too. Although admittedly you'd need a larger amount of time to assess a game properly.

    Some people say "get the demo first then". That's great if the game makers provide a demo, but very few do.

    Also I notice someone mentioned you can't play the games without steam being online. This is and isn't true. Some games require it some don't. This is mainly because of features such as achievements etc, or workshop updates and suchlike. However, its entirely possible to patch a game and play it without even having steam installed at all.

    Also at least 20 of the 72 games I have in my list can be played without steam or being online. Its simply not as black and white as that. If a game requires steam to be present and online, that's the developers choice and not steams. Just as its not compulsory to have achievements for a game.

    Most zero day pirated games are released with no steam patches. So its a great resource for pirates.

    1. Rob 44

      Re: Must agree

      I've just thought about it and think I have a solution that might work.

      Make all games free, but give them a time limit of say 6 hours. If you clock up 6 hours and want to carry on playing then you trump up the cash or uninstall it.

      That should fix all the problems with refunds etc.

      1. dan1980

        Re: Must agree

        @Rob 44

        6 hours?

        What if there is a game-breaking bug half-way through? A lot of consumer law hinges on reasonable expectations. If I buy a game, I have an expectation that I can play the game to completion and make use of all the mechanics and features to their fullest extent. That is a reasonable expectation.

        How about if the game has multiple 'paths'? Even a single play-through may not be enough to find a problem.

        In a way, the '6 hour' suggestion is like saying that if you don't identify a problem with a car during a test drive then that's your own fault. Clearly that's not the case there and it shouldn't be here either.

        If you purchase something, it should work. It is not up to the customer to thoroughly test the product prior to agreeing to purchase it; it is up to the manufacturer to ensure that the product is fit for purpose. If that manufacturer feels that that burden is too heavy then that is their choice. If a developer decides that they don't want to incur the expense of proper Q&A testing then so be it but that risk should be theirs and not the customer's.

        If software is broken then, just like any other product, the manufacturer has a responsibility to repair, replace or refund. Repair and replace are functionally the same in this instance but the important part is that it must be done in a reasonable time. The question is what is a reasonable time.

        In terms of refunds, I am not sure of the legal side of it but I would suggest that a distinction should be made between problems which could reasonably be forseen and addressed by the manufacturer and those which are genuinely unexpected. In the former situation, customers should have a right to a refund, even if the manufacturer would rather repair/replace.

        This becomes interesting with software because there is no way to blame bad luck or specific, one-off circumstances for faults. Say one buys a car and the engine overheats. It might be found that a sub-standard component from a supplier is to blame or something being outside of normal tolerances. In that case, the car gets fixed or replaced and, as the event was rare, it is unlikely that the replacement part/vehicle will have the same problem.

        With a video game, however, any problem exists in the code and cannot be justified as a single faulty component, failing in a small subset of instances. But this is not an undue burden as there is no requirement to test those individual instances. Going back to the car, one should test all the parts during design and then randomly test samples during manufacturing and again test the finished product. With software, there is only one finished product, rather than thousands so you can spend a lot more time testing that one product.

        In terms of what can be reasonably foreseen, there is no excuse for the debacle that was Sim City. If there is a recent game that warrants a refund, it's that.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Must agree

      "Also at least 20 of the 72 games I have in my list can be played without steam"

      Just out of curiosity, is it easy to tell up front, before money changes hands, that you can play a game offline?

  8. Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik

    Not fit for purpose...

    Valve can just adjust that sure we will provide refunds under the conditions that game ending achievment has not yet been achieved and in 14 days have not passed since day of purchase. I think that would be reasonable as a valid refund policy.

    Considering that some games can start off well enough but will eventually degenerate into a PoS that makes them unplayable.

    1. RAMChYLD

      Re: Not fit for purpose...

      +1. I regretted buying Left 4 Dead 2. Bought it only to find out that there are no Malaysian servers (apparently Malaysians prefer killing each other in DOTA2 - a sentiment that I do not share), the game only offers Russian servers to me for some weird reason. Connecting to any of them will invariably get me kicked from a game after a few minutes due to bad ping. I eventually found out that there are Singaporean servers (won't appear in the server search in the game- I have to go to the eClub website and get the server IPs from there), but they're limited, almost always full, and if you do find a space, someone would want to votekick you so that "a true Singaporean can join" (read: so his friend can join). Pure BS. And Valve would not refund me if I asked due to the policy.

      Single player? Tried it. Not feasible with the original L4D levels due to the AI being too stupid (ie blow up a gas station when you're right in front of it).

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: Not fit for purpose...

        Exactly how is the lack of local servers or space Steams problem? They add them based on the number of people using the system. If not enough people use the system, then you basically voted them "off the island".

        Answer, use/buy something else. Don't ask someone to refund what they couldn't provide you with.

        1. Ceiling Cat
          Pint

          Re: Not fit for purpose...

          Also, since he mentions the fact that a non-Valve entity runs some game servers in Singapore, it shows that Valve aren't necessarily responsible for providing the servers in the first place.

          Also, people seem to forget that Steam is just an online shop and DRM system - Valve may publish some of their software through it, but so do many other companies.

          This could also be a case of Butthurt due to someone not liking the Early Access game they bought : these are pretty clearly labeled as "works in progress". I'd also not be surprised to find out that some of the customers represented are complaining about a game not working because they don't meed the Required Specs. You'd be surprised how many people get angry because their just-barely-meets-the-minimum-spec gaming rig won't run a game at 60 frames per second, and think that's a reason to get their money back, rather than sucking it up and upgrading their machine.

    2. Tim Bates

      Re: Not fit for purpose...

      "under the conditions that game ending achievment has not yet been achieved"

      While that is OK circumstantial evidence, it's not really compelling. Achievements can be reset in most cases by a simple tool. Why rewrite that system when you can just say "no" to refunds?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon