I'm of decidedly mixed opinion of this. On one hand this story indicates an informed parent (who is well aware of what the game's contents entail) being denied a product they paid for and not being able to get a refund for that specific product when he attempts to get his money back. In this case, I believe he should be able to get his money back or have his son be allowed to register and play the game.
The other problem is this, Its a specific case. Large companies like EA and other major distributors generally have large customer bases and need to have contracts (IE EULA's) that cover broad ranges of people with general guidelines they can apply to all their products. The 13+ age requirements for registration and playing isn't an attempt at parenting our kids, its an attempt to avoid a negligence lawsuit from people who would sue them for not having safeguards in place for preventing younger children who don't have a parents consent from playing and getting scared/offended by a teen or older game. Yes the reating system is just a guideline but people have sued over similar things before.
The $20 credit is an interesting thing as well. The first thing is that it is a way covering themselves in court by saying we not only offered him compensation equal to but more than what he paid to us. Yes he paid in microsoft points but thats like going to an arcade and buying tokens with a credit card. the EA credit being the tokens and the Microsoft points being the credit card. The tokens are only good at that arcade but they have an established value. EA assumes that since they came to the EA store they wanted an EA product, and since the customer was not ble to get the game he wanted, we will be nice and give him a chance to get something of equal value or better than what he paid at their store. Yes it was on a website for a product that was entirely electronic data, but a website is still a store all the same. Nowhere does it state that EA had to give him the credit of $20. That was EA saying "We are sorry that you didn't read our EULA or the microsoft screen that says you have to be 13+ to have an account that will let you play a teen rated game online. But to be nice about it, you can have what you paid plus 5 bucks towards whatever you want in our store." I see the multiplayer aspect of games alot like a phone company. You may own the physicall phone in your house but its the phone company that you pay money to that has the ability to connect you with people outside your home. Since gameing leans more to the purely recreational then essential side of provided services, the game companies and sever providers like Microsoft have more control on the rules they have on who can and can't show up. For example, You and your friends are dancing in a club at a party, But its the club's rules that you have to abide by if you want to play. Frankly, both the EA store and Microsoft store do say in the EULA's that you have to be 13+ to have an account so you can play before you can finalize the purchase. Mr. Wetzel can't say he wasn't warned about the rules unless he skipped reading the EULA which, sadly, alot of people do and is very irresponsible to do. So while this situation is odd and rare, it is a good example that no particular system for game sales is perfect and can lead to wierd situations like this.
The big companies have to be strict in adhearing to these guidlines they create because once they bend or make an exception to them, it sets precidence for others to claim "You did it for X why not me? thats favoritism, I'll sue!" As much as I believe this guy should be able to play the game he paid for and have his son be able to play if he believes his son can handle it well, I really doubt this will be resolved in his favor. As there would be other people who abuse this exception for their own gain EA and Microsoft probably uphold the ban. The best way to counteract people exploiting these exceptions and avoiding situations like Mr Wetzel, in theory mind you, would be to have specific individual contracts with each customer. Unfortunately, in reality that is so impractical that it is impossible for large companies like EA and Microsoft to do, so they have to go with contracts or EULA's that cover the largest middle ground and stick with them even if it makes them look like hartless evil theives.
