Support NeoGAF

[EssKayZee]

From Eurogamer:

The German Consumer Protection Authority (VZBV) has decided to take legal action against Nintendo over its no-cancellation eShop pre-order policy.

The eShop policy in question is Nintendo's refusal to allow cancellations and refunds of eShop games, even pre-ordered way before release. The Norwegian Consumer Council said this breaks European law, but Nintendo said the pre-loading process - whereby the game can be downloaded ahead of release - means it doesn't.

Details at link.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Good. Companies should stop this shitty behavior. I hope Sony is next

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Strange way to go about it, but this is good. Players should always be able to cancel their preorders up to the time of launch since they haven't yet received the product for which they paid.

 

[Husky]

Governments fighting for consumer rights, it all seems so foreign from where I'm standing. Kudos.

 

[GreatGreen]

Not to defend a video game company, but maybe people shouldn't be idiots and preorder games they're not 110% confident in.

Which is of course to say that pretty much nobody should ever preorder games under any circumstances.

 

[brian0057]

Not to defend a video game company, but maybe people shouldn't be idiots and preorder games they're not 110% confident in.

Which is of course to say that pretty much nobody should ever preorder games under any circumstances.

Hey, since people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions regarding loot boxes and microtransactions, what makes you think they would begin to do so when it comes to pre-orders?

This are the same folks that demand the government to save them from their profoundly shit decisions and then will wonder in the future why suddenly a game can't display guns, tits, violence, or profanities in the name of the [insert vulnerable group of your choosing].
It's the Comic Code Authority all over again.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Shoddy video games aren't a health and safety issue, so most western governments will have lax laws.

Now if that crappy game had an electrical shock issue where you plug it in and you get zapped, it would be recalled immediately. A game that freezes at the title screen, good luck with getting a refund.

 

[Zog]

Not to defend a video game company, but maybe people shouldn't be idiots and preorder games they're not 110% confident in.

Which is of course to say that pretty much nobody should ever preorder games under any circumstances.

It's true, pre-order culture is a cancer. So are greedy corporations.

 

[Clear]

It's true, pre-order culture is a cancer. So are greedy corporations.

if the goods said "greedy corporations" provide is non-essential, then from where I stand its buyer beware.

Sorry, not sorry. But this is what I consider to be a teachable moment. If you haven't got the self-control and basic responsibility to decide whether or not you want to enter into an irrevocable transaction to buy a video game, the world is going to eat you alive.

I don't think getting burnt by deciding to buy a game sight-unseen and regretting it later is that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

 

[TLZ]

Good. Greedy Nintendo gotta go. Good Nintendo stay.

 

[Zog]

if the goods said "greedy corporations" provide is non-essential, then from where I stand its buyer beware.

Sorry, not sorry. But this is what I consider to be a teachable moment. If you haven't got the self-control and basic responsibility to decide whether or not you want to enter into an irrevocable transaction to buy a video game, the world is going to eat you alive.

I don't think getting burnt by deciding to buy a game sight-unseen and regretting it later is that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

Hmm, are you sure you want to say that a company can be as anti-consumer as it wants as long as it's product is non-essential?

 

[DynamiteCop!]

I love what Microsoft is doing more and more by the day, with them now practicing return and refund practices common in the PC space it really is showing the cracks of how archaic Nintendo and Sony's general operations are with their platforms.

 

[Wings 嫩翼翻せ]

Some real bollocks on Nintendo, hope the German court has its way.

 

[Clear]

Hmm, are you sure you want to say that a company can be as anti-consumer as it wants as long as it's product is non-essential?

Define "anti-consumer". I'd consider the most significant part of the definition being exploitative or coercive. This is neither of those things.

If you don't like the terms of a transaction, why go through with it if you absolutely don't have to? Its not even a case of the pre-order being the only way to obtain the product. Some deposits are just unrefundable, its not an uncommon practice in property transactions for example.

The point is that there are numerous far more financially damaging agreements a person can irrevocably enter into. Like I said, getting burnt on a $60 game should be considered a plus, if the experience leads to not making similar, but far more dire mistakes in the future.

 

[Aenima]

Good. Companies should stop this shitty behavior. I hope Sony is next

Here in Europe Sony let you cancel your pre-orders. European laws are very pro consumer.

 

[Zog]

Define "anti-consumer". I'd consider the most significant part of the definition being exploitative or coercive.

Well, this is progress because first you said:

if the goods said "greedy corporations" provide is non-essential, then from where I stand its buyer beware.

So I guess it's not ALWAYS buyer beware with non-essential products, just ones that you think are not exploitative or coercive.

How would I describe anti-consumer? No refunds policies are anti-consumer especially for a product that a customer has paid for but hasn't yet received.

 

[Clear]

How would I describe anti-consumer? No refunds policies are anti-consumer especially for a product that a customer has paid for but hasn't yet received.

How do you square that with things like say, phone contracts, where the agreement binds the signee to committing to pay the full term of the agreement, even if they wish to upgrade sooner either out of desire or necessity?

Committing to something does not require immediate receipt.

The problem with your pre-orders argument is that receipt of the good is never going to be immediate, that's the entire premise of the transaction. There are plenty of situations where receipt is deferred to a future date, a high value example for instance is buying a car or property which has yet to be built/completed.

You either accept the deal as offered or you don't. Those are your fundamental rights as a consumer. Demanding to be able to unilaterally revoke said agreement on demand seems more impinging on the vendors rights to me.

Obviously, if anything impacts the terms of the agreement, such as the vendor being unable to deliver the product on the date agreed, then some reparation or at least the ability to opt-out is absolutely reasonable. But if the date isn't contractually agreed upon up-front, I'm afraid its back to the onus being on the buyer once more.

 

[Zog]

How do you square that with things like say, phone contracts, where the agreement binds the signee to committing to pay the full term of the agreement, even if they wish to upgrade sooner either out of desire or necessity?

Committing to something does not require immediate receipt.

The problem with your pre-orders argument is that receipt of the good is never going to be immediate, that's the entire premise of the transaction. There are plenty of situations where receipt is deferred to a future date, a high value example for instance is buying a car or property which has yet to be built/completed.

You either accept the deal as offered or you don't. Those are your fundamental rights as a consumer. Demanding to be able to unilaterally revoke said agreement on demand seems more impinging on the vendors rights to me.

Obviously, if anything impacts the terms of the agreement, such as the vendor being unable to deliver the product on the date agreed, then some reparation or at least the ability to opt-out is absolutely reasonable. But if the date isn't contractually agreed upon up-front, I'm afraid its back to the onus being on the buyer once more.

Well, I give up. There is always someone to defend anything.

 

[Clear]

Well, I give up. There is always someone to defend anything.

I'm not defending anything, so much as saying that both parties in an agreement should be willing to live up to their obligations. Noone has a gun to their head when it comes to buying a game!

I don't pre-order games EVER, because I don't see the benefit in it. I couldn't give a toss what tchotchkes they offer for doing so because ultimately the product needs to be able to justify itself without them.

But if someone else has the disposable cash and wants some bonus tat, why the fuck not allow them that option?

 

[GenericUser]

Edit : -