Poll: Do you think Video Games Need a Lemon Law?

[GonzoGamer]

Its a nice concept, but I dont think the minor investment of a game is worth neough to the industry to start up something that works like the Lemon laws do and run as an organization.

Then I guess what I'm curious about is how bad do you think it should get before we make them enact something like that?

Mu opinion is that it's getting to that point now: with the consoles connected to the net, many more developers are releasing games that are not ready just because they can. So we essentially end up paying $60 to beta test when that's a job they should be paying others to do and when that amount of money should guarantee us a finished product. It's pretty evident that they're getting lazy and we shouldn't stand for it.
It's actually one of the main things tempting me to abandon consoles all together for the pc where modders can sometimes patch a game better than the developers. Some might just abandon gaming all together if the quality slips far enough. I'm sure they don't want it to get to that point.

I like what Therumancer says above. I appreciate capitalism (it's made me a lot of money) but we shouldn't let the consumer (the weakest part of the equation) go unprotected, especially when they are patient enough to wait for patches even when that means the retail warranty runs out. In those cases (where the game is never satisfactorily patched and the retailer wont accept a refund), the consumer should be able to get their money back.
I'm of the opinion that just the threat of government regulation of quality would encourage them to do this themselves the way they did with the ESRB. Likewise the threat of having to refund to the consumers, will encourage developers to release games that work and to swiftly fix the problems when they are found. Many developers still put pay for dlc as a higher priority than patches to fix the game. That shouldn't be.

 

[Trolldor]

But then where do you draw the line between a 'defective' and a not 'defective' game? It's pretty easy to determine whether a car works - either it does or it doesn't. But if you can install, launch and play a game then you can't really call it defective, can you?
Besides, there's no flawless software, every game comes with bugs, especially the ones developed for PC.

I can tell you what is a defective game - Splinter Cell, Double Agent on PC. The ending cutscene never plays.

Anything which actively stops you from playing the game - game breaker bugs - automatically qualify as defective.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

There will always be glitches in games. It's unavoidable, especially in limited development periods, the best they can do is try to minimize the amount. We shouldn't be punishing the Developers for trying thier best.

 

[nyttyn]

I came in here expecting comboustible lemons. I was very dissapointed.

But seriously though, no. The lemon law is because a malfunctioning car is bloody dangerous, and a malfunctioning game nowhere near so.

 

[Wintermoot]

unlike a car companies offer fixes for free.

 

[CodeOrange]

I do believe gamers already have several lemon laws: these would include online reviews and piracy.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I do believe gamers already have several lemon laws: these would include online reviews and piracy.

Reviews don't work. They always seem to candy coat everything.
Most of the reviews for New Vegas claimed that they were already fixing things. It took them 4 or 5 patches in 6 months to fix some of it but I still hear people complain it's a mess.

Piracy would help but I don't think publishers want us to turn to that.

 

[thenamelessloser]

No, the best games usually have bugs. I would much rather have a bug filled great game such a Fallout game than a piece of crap unambitious generic game.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Christ... am I the only person who had literally no bugs pop up during Fallout: New Vegas?

Anywho... on topic.

I find that I end up with more defective DVDs and Blu-Rays than video games. I honestly can't remember a single game that was broken beyond playability. And video games at the very least get the benefit of patches and mods if something doesn't work.

So I guess I just don't really see the point in having a lemon law for games.

 

[Grubnar]

Christ... am I the only person who had literally no bugs pop up during Fallout: New Vegas?

Anywho... on topic.

I find that I end up with more defective DVDs and Blu-Rays than video games. I honestly can't remember a single game that was broken beyond playability. And video games at the very least get the benefit of patches and mods if something doesn't work.

So I guess I just don't really see the point in having a lemon law for games.

No, you are not the only one. It worked fine for me.
Fallout 3 on the other hand was unplayable. I mean it was literally impossible for me to play that game. In the end I downloaded a a "crack" from a pirated version so I could play through my legally perchessed product. I find it strange how the so called "pirates" were alot quicker to fix what was wrong with a game then the actual designers.

 

[zehydra]

Cars are way more expensive than video games, and when Cars go bad, well, bad things happen.

Nothing happens to you when you buy a buggy game (which you apparently didn't research well enough), other than just being disappointed.

So... you're suggesting that the government get involved for the sake of somebody getting disappointed with their entertainment?

 

[corsair47]

Because this is the new, awesomest meme, but is in no way relevant:

In an effort to stave off a probation

No, I think people will abuse it. If they can rally up to bring PORTAL 2's score down in metacritic, they are capable of any and all evil, greedy self-entitled deeds. They'd go "OH MY GOD! I found A glitch on Half-Life 3! I DEMAND refund NAW!!!" The government has better things to do than cater to obnoxious, entitled dipshits.

If you heard a game is buggy, buy it later or buy it at your OWN risk. Simple as that.

i was thinking exactly this the entire time (the cave johnson part) i think it would be a rediculous idea too though, why don't you just read the review before you get the game.

 

[Therumancer]

For those of you unfamiliar: Lemon Law is something that protects consumers (at least in America) when they buy a car that is defective.

I?ve been thinking lately that I would appreciate a law like that for video games as well. I?m sure that many of you have bought at least one game this gen (and in previous gens) that has been so buggy, that it probably shouldn?t have been worked on more before launch. While with this generation we do now have the ability to get patches for our games, sometimes a game is still broken after a few patches that are released over the span of several months. This week I saw in the details of a much anticipated patch for one of the most broken games of this gen (Fallout New Vegas) that it would cause a completely new glitch for one platform in particular (PS3).

Now as annoying as it is to get a broken game I recognize that a defective game isn?t as dangerous as a fast moving box of metal and glass with a tank of combustible liquid inside.

So what do you think? Is it becoming necessary or would that be overdoing it. If you think it is necessary, how do you think it should work? I would like to see consumers protected but I wouldn?t want to see it go so far that it starts putting publishers out of business.

I've been of the opinion for a while that gamers need some consumer advocacy, in general groups like the BBB (Better Business Bureau) seem to be generally uninvolved with software.

Right now I think we do have an issue with developers keeping their cards very close to their chest, requiring people to ultimatly go entirely by advertising and hype before buying a product, with the consumer expected to take a "leap of faith" with little in the way of return options, especially as things go increasingly digital. I don't think Demos are a fair demonstration in general, as they function more like advertisements, and in many cases it's been a very valid complaint that a finished product doesn't come accross like the Demo did.

I'm not a big fan of big goverment, but I do tend to think there is enough exploitation in this system where sadly there is no other way to deal with the problem. I'd prefer the honesty system, but as time goes on I think people are getting burned too often, and simply put whining game nerds just tend to be ignore by companies, even with massive petitions. If game/software companies listed and acted it might be diffterant, but that isn't the case.

Simply put I think game developers need to be held responsible for their products, like other industries, and what's more I do think we need some manner of return policy forced by the goverment as things increasingly go digital.

 

[GonzoGamer]

For those of you unfamiliar: Lemon Law is something that protects consumers (at least in America) when they buy a car that is defective.

I?ve been thinking lately that I would appreciate a law like that for video games as well. I?m sure that many of you have bought at least one game this gen (and in previous gens) that has been so buggy, that it probably shouldn?t have been worked on more before launch. While with this generation we do now have the ability to get patches for our games, sometimes a game is still broken after a few patches that are released over the span of several months. This week I saw in the details of a much anticipated patch for one of the most broken games of this gen (Fallout New Vegas) that it would cause a completely new glitch for one platform in particular (PS3).

Now as annoying as it is to get a broken game I recognize that a defective game isn?t as dangerous as a fast moving box of metal and glass with a tank of combustible liquid inside.

So what do you think? Is it becoming necessary or would that be overdoing it. If you think it is necessary, how do you think it should work? I would like to see consumers protected but I wouldn?t want to see it go so far that it starts putting publishers out of business.

I've been of the opinion for a while that gamers need some consumer advocacy, in general groups like the BBB (Better Business Bureau) seem to be generally uninvolved with software.

Right now I think we do have an issue with developers keeping their cards very close to their chest, requiring people to ultimatly go entirely by advertising and hype before buying a product, with the consumer expected to take a "leap of faith" with little in the way of return options, especially as things go increasingly digital. I don't think Demos are a fair demonstration in general, as they function more like advertisements, and in many cases it's been a very valid complaint that a finished product doesn't come accross like the Demo did.

I'm not a big fan of big goverment, but I do tend to think there is enough exploitation in this system where sadly there is no other way to deal with the problem. I'd prefer the honesty system, but as time goes on I think people are getting burned too often, and simply put whining game nerds just tend to be ignore by companies, even with massive petitions. If game/software companies listed and acted it might be diffterant, but that isn't the case.

Simply put I think game developers need to be held responsible for their products, like other industries, and what's more I do think we need some manner of return policy forced by the goverment as things increasingly go digital.

I totally agree with you except that I don?t think the government would need to get involved at all. The gaming industry has proven with the esrb that they are able to police themselves. As (almost) no game is completely free of glitches, I would be satisfied with a glitch rating system where the equivalent of an AO rating (something like Fallout New Vegas) would not be produced for the consoles where you have no way of trying to fix the problem yourself or with the help of modders.
In fact, I think it would be a more effective body if the glitch-watch version of esrb was overseen by the industry itself. Especially since it is a global industry and our government obviously (and most others probably) don't really understand it. At least give them the chance. If it?s not effective and the problems get worse, then maybe the government would have to get involved. But I don't think it would come to that.
With all the overuse of the word ?entitlement? on game forums lately I think that a lot of gamers are forgetting that when buying games, they are ?entitled? to a complete and functional piece of software and that?s not always what we get.

 

[Therumancer]

I've been of the opinion for a while that gamers need some consumer advocacy, in general groups like the BBB (Better Business Bureau) seem to be generally uninvolved with software.

Right now I think we do have an issue with developers keeping their cards very close to their chest, requiring people to ultimatly go entirely by advertising and hype before buying a product, with the consumer expected to take a "leap of faith" with little in the way of return options, especially as things go increasingly digital. I don't think Demos are a fair demonstration in general, as they function more like advertisements, and in many cases it's been a very valid complaint that a finished product doesn't come accross like the Demo did.

I'm not a big fan of big goverment, but I do tend to think there is enough exploitation in this system where sadly there is no other way to deal with the problem. I'd prefer the honesty system, but as time goes on I think people are getting burned too often, and simply put whining game nerds just tend to be ignore by companies, even with massive petitions. If game/software companies listed and acted it might be diffterant, but that isn't the case.

Simply put I think game developers need to be held responsible for their products, like other industries, and what's more I do think we need some manner of return policy forced by the goverment as things increasingly go digital.

Where I do not believe the goverment should be involved in issues related to speech and content, being involved in the quality of products is one of the cases where I feel they need to be involved along with the formation of consumer advocacy groups. Such consumer groups both need some kind of govermental agency to go to, and also act as a watchdog on such groups.

In cases where there is money involved, businesses oftentimes don't engage in self-policing properly. In general all we're liable to see is a lot more "pass the buck" back and forth. Game companies blaming hardware manufacturers "contact them for patches in your drivers" or "buy a new card" and hardware manufacturers saying "hey it isn't us, it's buggy software". We've seen it all before, and it will just get worse under those circumstances.

It would be one thing if the gaming and software industry was to just get their acts together, but I have little faith in that happening. Right now digital distribution, which is heading to consoles and portables as well, serves to make the industry increasingly less accountable as there is increasingly no real product involved.










I totally agree with you except that I don?t think the government would need to get involved at all. The gaming industry has proven with the esrb that they are able to police themselves. As (almost) no game is completely free of glitches, I would be satisfied with a glitch rating system where the equivalent of an AO rating (something like Fallout New Vegas) would not be produced for the consoles where you have no way of trying to fix the problem yourself or with the help of modders.
In fact, I think it would be a more effective body if the glitch-watch version of esrb was overseen by the industry itself. Especially since it is a global industry and our government obviously (and most others probably) don't really understand it. At least give them the chance. If it?s not effective and the problems get worse, then maybe the government would have to get involved. But I don't think it would come to that.
With all the overuse of the word ?entitlement? on game forums lately I think that a lot of gamers are forgetting that when buying games, they are ?entitled? to a complete and functional piece of software and that?s not always what we get.[/quote]

 

[Forum_Name]

I thought releasing buggy games that require updates/patches was a new form of DRM.
No registers games, but if you have to frequently connect with company servers just so their buggy release won't crash...

 

[GonzoGamer]

I totally agree with you except that I don?t think the government would need to get involved at all. The gaming industry has proven with the esrb that they are able to police themselves. As (almost) no game is completely free of glitches, I would be satisfied with a glitch rating system where the equivalent of an AO rating (something like Fallout New Vegas) would not be produced for the consoles where you have no way of trying to fix the problem yourself or with the help of modders.
In fact, I think it would be a more effective body if the glitch-watch version of esrb was overseen by the industry itself. Especially since it is a global industry and our government obviously (and most others probably) don't really understand it. At least give them the chance. If it?s not effective and the problems get worse, then maybe the government would have to get involved. But I don't think it would come to that.
With all the overuse of the word ?entitlement? on game forums lately I think that a lot of gamers are forgetting that when buying games, they are ?entitled? to a complete and functional piece of software and that?s not always what we get.

I've been of the opinion for a while that gamers need some consumer advocacy, in general groups like the BBB (Better Business Bureau) seem to be generally uninvolved with software.

Right now I think we do have an issue with developers keeping their cards very close to their chest, requiring people to ultimatly go entirely by advertising and hype before buying a product, with the consumer expected to take a "leap of faith" with little in the way of return options, especially as things go increasingly digital. I don't think Demos are a fair demonstration in general, as they function more like advertisements, and in many cases it's been a very valid complaint that a finished product doesn't come accross like the Demo did.

I'm not a big fan of big goverment, but I do tend to think there is enough exploitation in this system where sadly there is no other way to deal with the problem. I'd prefer the honesty system, but as time goes on I think people are getting burned too often, and simply put whining game nerds just tend to be ignore by companies, even with massive petitions. If game/software companies listed and acted it might be diffterant, but that isn't the case.

Simply put I think game developers need to be held responsible for their products, like other industries, and what's more I do think we need some manner of return policy forced by the goverment as things increasingly go digital.

Where I do not believe the goverment should be involved in issues related to speech and content, being involved in the quality of products is one of the cases where I feel they need to be involved along with the formation of consumer advocacy groups. Such consumer groups both need some kind of govermental agency to go to, and also act as a watchdog on such groups.

In cases where there is money involved, businesses oftentimes don't engage in self-policing properly. In general all we're liable to see is a lot more "pass the buck" back and forth. Game companies blaming hardware manufacturers "contact them for patches in your drivers" or "buy a new card" and hardware manufacturers saying "hey it isn't us, it's buggy software". We've seen it all before, and it will just get worse under those circumstances.

It would be one thing if the gaming and software industry was to just get their acts together, but I have little faith in that happening. Right now digital distribution, which is heading to consoles and portables as well, serves to make the industry increasingly less accountable as there is increasingly no real product involved.

I?m with you there. We can see this already happening:
LA Noir bricking consoles ? first they blames the consoles? firmware then the console developers said it was the game software. Then they stopped blaming each other but didn?t bother taking any responsibility either. Nobody?s bothered to do anything about it.
These companies have also proven over the past few years that they can be as irresponsible as they want and people will still buy their crap.
At the same time I feel that a panel of peers would have a better idea of what?s acceptable and what?s not. The government would either make something completely ineffectual (if headed by left wingers) or completely draconian (if headed by right wingers). However if whatever body was formed by the game companies didn?t do anything, then, yes, the government would have to step in and take it over.
I?m hoping that it wouldn?t come to that. I would hope that these companies can police themselves the way they do with the esrb. If it wasn?t for the esrb, I wouldn?t trust them at all either. But given the success, they should be given the chance.
I can totally understand your pov: that they obviously can?t be trusted to make quality software on their own so why would a body they put in place help regulate them. It could be done but yes, until it was established to work, some bit of oversight would be necessary. Just not completely government run.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Someone who takes a "your only out $60" mentality has the wrong attitude, and is probably in possession of enough money compared to the rest of us where they are jaded about the value of the dollar. That's not an insignifigant chunk of change, no matter how you try and justify it.

[...]

I think a lot of solid information about games needs to be revealed before they are allowed to put it on the market, including frank analysis of bugs, the amount of content, and even the play style. Even with things like Demos out there, we have a serious problem when the game you get and the promotional material don't wind up matching.

This content already exists online, and is readily accessible with a smidgeon of work and critical thought regarding the source of the review and feedback, contrasts between other sources of feedback, professional review content, developer, and publisher. Because a game store does not provide you with that information as you buy the game does not convict them of intentionally selling bad products, and it certainly doesn't acquit the consumer of being lazy.

The consumer's first line of defense is themselves. That means stop preordering, consider the game's source, wait for professional and personal reviews to contrast, play a demo or borrow the game from a friend, subscribe to Gamefly, and whatever else the consumer must do to make an informed decision of whether to purchase a game or not.

If an individual as a gamer wants to send a message to a game company, whining online and buying the game anyway is not the way to do it: vote with your wallet first and foremost, then network with others. The game industry is the way it currently is between IP rights, the hype-release-hype AAA cycle, low optimization and quality assurance, and such because the consumers enable it by continuing to buy crappy games. If you want designers and publishers to do better, don't buy crappy games and reward them for the exact behavior you want stopped, and urge others to do the same.

 

[Spygon]

Only if the game is unplayable and i mean completly like you turn in on then nothing happens or everytime you get to a certain point the game always freezes.

As all games have bugs so the law would be abused badly so nope i feel your going to far.