Blogger Denied Refund for Game EA Won't Let Him Play
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Yup. Got one myself because of problems with a game/license. You can probably find other people here who have done the same.D_987 said:
I mean, honestly, do you seriously think "absolutely no refunds ever!" would hold up in court?
... Buggy online activation?
Yeah, OK, the main issue here is the age restriction. But that brings to mind my issues with Atari.
It was a PC game, so DRM of some kind for a digital download was to be expected... But after half a dozen emails with their sales & technical support staff, the bottom line is they didn't give me what I needed to play the game.
And it'd be 100% useless were it not for the easy availability of cracks & Serial codes on the internet.
In other words; Pay them your money, get nothing in return.
It's that kind of shoddy customer service, and complete disregard for any kind of consumer rights that makes industries involved with Intellectual Property look like colossal assholes that somehow get away with murder (and have the legal backing for it to boot.)
If this were a consumer good, food, etc. There'd be all kinds of consumer protection laws in effect, and yet somehow, we put up with not even being allowed a refund at all, regardless of the issue.
That's just not right.
Yeah, OK, the main issue here is the age restriction. But that brings to mind my issues with Atari.
It was a PC game, so DRM of some kind for a digital download was to be expected... But after half a dozen emails with their sales & technical support staff, the bottom line is they didn't give me what I needed to play the game.
And it'd be 100% useless were it not for the easy availability of cracks & Serial codes on the internet.
In other words; Pay them your money, get nothing in return.
It's that kind of shoddy customer service, and complete disregard for any kind of consumer rights that makes industries involved with Intellectual Property look like colossal assholes that somehow get away with murder (and have the legal backing for it to boot.)
If this were a consumer good, food, etc. There'd be all kinds of consumer protection laws in effect, and yet somehow, we put up with not even being allowed a refund at all, regardless of the issue.
That's just not right.
Ok, let's re-phrase the question so I can get a more specific view; have you, or do you have any evidence to suggest anyone, has received a refund on an Xbox Live Arcade game due to anything other than a technical error [which this was not]?Zachary Amaranth said:
D_987 said:
That is dirty politics. What they did isn't legally wrong, but it is morally reprehensible. And people constantly make excuses for companies in this situation. He bought the game on the kids Live membership. Why was he allowed to buy it? They didn't stop him then, but they did stop him from playing a game that he should never have been allowed to buy. Why isn't there a simple parental locking mechanism for this situation where the kids parent can give an ok for the kid to play it? Bars don't sell beer to kids, then call the police on the kids for underage drinking. Why is this situation reversed?D_987 said:
Also, as far as I'm concerned, the father is the legal guardian of the child, and by all rights he should be allowed to change the childs age on the account so he could at least play it. He shot himself in the foot again by being honest in this situation. He should have called them up and say he entered the wrong age for his sons live membership. But he is an honest guy, and him and his son are now paying the price for that.
It's an example of a broken system and people should not be making excuses for it. The guy was honest, he isn't manipulating the system to get something for free, he is simply trying to get a refund for a product that no one can play on that system. Honest people shouldn't be made to lie just so they can use the items they buy.
OT: Though it's morally reprehensible, and I would love to sit here and think of ways that these other two fellas are wrong, the guy should have paid more attention. Microsoft and EA are both guilty of being terrible to their customers, exploiting customers, and overall lousy business practices (We all know how bad EA is). I wish to hell the guy paid more attention. Microsoft could fix this if they wanted, they could change the birth date on the kids profile, but they won't. The problem is the broken system the companies endorse.
I wish these folks all the luck in the world though.
If they absolutely need to idiot proof their systems I'd agree, but I don't agree that anyone with even the most basic understanding of language could mis-interpret that information. It's crystal clear you must be 13+ to register to EA Online, and that EA Online controls the games content - all information any reader can quickly gather from that print. Had they included a large, more detailed list you'd have complained the text was hidden purposely.mdk31 said:
But that's after he bought the game, isn't it? If that's the case, wouldn't it be a little unfair to drop $15 for a game only to find out your song can't play and you can't get your money back?awesome_ninja said:
EDIT: That, and they allowed the account registered to the 9-year old to buy the game. That's a bit shady to me, anyways.
Well I see what the consensus seems focused on so I will say that this is an absolutely PERFECT example of why digital distribution is bad for the consumer and will only serve to hurt the industry.
Basically it boils down to no rights of ownership and the organization dictating how you use a product you purchased from them. All of this is basically irrelevant and quite frankly the only logical thing to do is to allow the account access to the game because it does not matter what the childs age is the second it was established the product was legally purchased by an adult, and provided the parent is actually parenting the child and knows what the child is doing. As the guy said It is something he purchased and HE chooses to allow his child to play it. Its not any game developers right to deny any consumer who legally purchased the game or dictate how the person who purchased the item chooses to use it. It was an adult who purchased the item in a legal fashion. EA has no legitimate right to deny an adult from accessing something they legally purchased, even if accessing it is under the watched hand of a minor, that is the way the adult wishes to access that specific account.
Dont get me wrong, I do fully understand EAs standpoint in keeping minors out of something not built for them, but it is not EAs job to raise our children, it is the parents job and the second it became clear that the item was purchased legally by an adult which consents for his child to use the product then any sort of block should have been lifted.
So heres a resolution that keeps everyone happy. Instead of pulling the dick move and saying NO! Even though there is a technicallity that contradicts our written rules" say, Ok, we cant allow your son to play it directly but because of the extenuating circumstance you can apply it to a secondary account under your name and move the property to the Seniors newly created account. Its accurate info supplied, the item has been paid for and the parent has the ability to give the Junior the access to it if the senior approves. Its not perfect but it basically satisfies everything of relevance.
I have never contacted EA personally, so I dont if their customer service is located in one of those places where English only rates a 4th language, but this REALLY sounds from the EA CSR standpoint sounds like this decision was made by one of those customer service reps from one of those locations who only know how to respond in prefabricated blurbs and lack the ability to think outside of the box in order to obtain an equitable resolution for all parties involved.
Yes one of the absolute worst things that has come out of this generation is that the notion of "The customer is always right" is in effect dead.
Basically it boils down to no rights of ownership and the organization dictating how you use a product you purchased from them. All of this is basically irrelevant and quite frankly the only logical thing to do is to allow the account access to the game because it does not matter what the childs age is the second it was established the product was legally purchased by an adult, and provided the parent is actually parenting the child and knows what the child is doing. As the guy said It is something he purchased and HE chooses to allow his child to play it. Its not any game developers right to deny any consumer who legally purchased the game or dictate how the person who purchased the item chooses to use it. It was an adult who purchased the item in a legal fashion. EA has no legitimate right to deny an adult from accessing something they legally purchased, even if accessing it is under the watched hand of a minor, that is the way the adult wishes to access that specific account.
Dont get me wrong, I do fully understand EAs standpoint in keeping minors out of something not built for them, but it is not EAs job to raise our children, it is the parents job and the second it became clear that the item was purchased legally by an adult which consents for his child to use the product then any sort of block should have been lifted.
So heres a resolution that keeps everyone happy. Instead of pulling the dick move and saying NO! Even though there is a technicallity that contradicts our written rules" say, Ok, we cant allow your son to play it directly but because of the extenuating circumstance you can apply it to a secondary account under your name and move the property to the Seniors newly created account. Its accurate info supplied, the item has been paid for and the parent has the ability to give the Junior the access to it if the senior approves. Its not perfect but it basically satisfies everything of relevance.
I have never contacted EA personally, so I dont if their customer service is located in one of those places where English only rates a 4th language, but this REALLY sounds from the EA CSR standpoint sounds like this decision was made by one of those customer service reps from one of those locations who only know how to respond in prefabricated blurbs and lack the ability to think outside of the box in order to obtain an equitable resolution for all parties involved.
Yes one of the absolute worst things that has come out of this generation is that the notion of "The customer is always right" is in effect dead.
This is the only important bit; we can have all the arguments over morals and so forth, but at the end of the day the person in question didn't pay attention - and legally lost their money as a result. The system should be fixed, but I don't agree by any means that it's entirely the big companies fault here.Baresark said:
Thank god EA is looking out for its audience and protecting the young minds of children so they're not corrupted /sarcasm.
Can't they just make a new live account with the age set high enough?
I don't have an Xbox so I'm not really sure how it works, but I do know that my friend has several different profiles on his Xbox. Is it because the console can only have 1 "control" account? What happens if you get a second hand Xbox? Are you screwed if the previous owner was a child?
I don't have an Xbox so I'm not really sure how it works, but I do know that my friend has several different profiles on his Xbox. Is it because the console can only have 1 "control" account? What happens if you get a second hand Xbox? Are you screwed if the previous owner was a child?
this is a game that can only be played online with an EA online account, correct? so it seems that deleting it off the local hard disk is irrelevant. besides, that's what customer support is (supposed to be) for, taking individual cases and deciding if an exception to policy is merited.D_987 said:
The thing is, he didn't legally lose his money, it's still theft. In the automotive industry, it's illegal to sell someone a car that doesn't work when you tell them it does work. No one said he wouldn't be able to play the game. It said you needed to be at least 13 to have an EA account. And it doesn't say he won't be able to register as a 13 year old for an EA account. And it doesn't actually say he won't be able to play the game without one. And I come back to my original point, why was he allowed to purchase the game on the account of a 9 year old? It's dirty business to sell things to people who aren't allowed to use them. You can't legally buy a gun when your a felon, but you don't buy a gun legally and then get arrested for illegally owning a gun. The system they have in place is the actual culprit. It could have been avoided, yes. But the broken system is what is trying to make the companies theft ok. It's illegal to jaywalk, but if you're jaywalking and get hit by a drunk driver, everyone agrees that it's the drunk drivers fault, and not the guy who was jaywalking. There is a level of personal responsibility, but that only goes so far, and it certainly doesn't cover what the company is doing.D_987 said:
This is why you read the fine print? I'm not buying that it wasn't written anywhere that the game was age restricted before he bought it. It might not have been touted on the bullet points, but it was there in the documentation.
If someone could do the due diligence on it while I remain lazy, that'd be nice.
If someone could do the due diligence on it while I remain lazy, that'd be nice.
Video games are making my kids into killers and rapists, why is nobody doing anything about this? it shouldn't be my responsibility as a parent to know what my child is doing...Ultra Man30 said:
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't