Sign in to follow this  
ualapil

Refund

Recommended Posts

Hiya there! As this game is pretty far from advertised and EU laws states on online shopping:

Under EU law, if the items turn out to be faulty or not as advertised, you have the same 2-year guarantee as if you had bought it in a shop.

When will you begin refunds on EU area?

Cheers Mikael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Item was sold as advertised, therefor no refund? You understand how early access works, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You understand how Early Access works in this particular instance, right? They're legally covered, I think.

Still a pretty nasty thing for them to do given that by "Early Access" they meant "Fund Us Or We Give Up" -- something technically permitted under the official Steam terms that you are supposed to have read before your purchase.

Double Fine is still at fault for not communicating with you properly, though, so feel free to be pissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As advertised? Really? How about a loads of features that are missing? From alpha 6 to release is not really OK in my book(nor in ECC).

What about the fact that Double Fine is releasing source? I'd be basically paying from a freeware game.

My guess is that 1.0 release is going to be at least as buggy as Legends of Pegasus and it was refunded.

And you do not have to patronize, hopefully we're all grown ups?

Link to ECC Misleading advertising.

Cheers again -Mikael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You understand how Early Access works in this particular instance, right? They're legally covered, I think.

Still a pretty nasty thing for them to do given that by "Early Access" they meant "Fund Us Or We Give Up" -- something technically permitted under the official Steam terms that you are supposed to have read before your purchase.

Double Fine is still at fault for not communicating with you properly, though, so feel free to be pissed.

Even if I also feel a little bit like this... They didn't say that as a threat like: "Fund Us Or We Give Up"...

It was more like the silent plan inside the company... and they didn't actually asked for more money or threatened us to stop the development if they don't make enough money. They stopped the development when there was simply no income anymore.

We have every right to be pissed, but we should keep it reasonable, suejak. (And maybe, just maybe DoubleFine will maybe care of how to give us something back (not money) to make us less disappointed and care for the people who trusted them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As advertised? Really? How about a loads of features that are missing? From alpha 6 to release is not really OK in my book(nor in ECC).

What about the fact that Double Fine is releasing source? I'd be basically paying from a freeware game.

My guess is that 1.0 release is going to be at least as buggy as Legends of Pegasus and it was refunded.

And you do not have to patronize, hopefully we're all grown ups?

Link to ECC Misleading advertising.

Cheers again -Mikael

They're releasing the lua code. Which was always in the Dev plan, by the way. That does not constitute making the game free.

I dare you to actually find a concrete example of this misleading advertising. Because I've looked, very hard. And there isn't any. If you'd like a refund, ask and perhaps they will provide. But going in all gung ho with claims of legal entitlement is a threatening and accusatory way to go about it, and so you should be prepared to fully back that up. Maybe let's do this the non lawyery way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand most of your posts, ShadowBroker...

What's your problem with my post, exactly? That I'm implying they threatened us?

I'm not; I'm complaining about the gap between reality and the intuitive meaning of the Early Access label.

No offense, but I'm not sure you get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As advertised? Really? How about a loads of features that are missing? From alpha 6 to release is not really OK in my book(nor in ECC).

What about the fact that Double Fine is releasing source? I'd be basically paying from a freeware game.

My guess is that 1.0 release is going to be at least as buggy as Legends of Pegasus and it was refunded.

And you do not have to patronize, hopefully we're all grown ups?

Link to ECC Misleading advertising.

Cheers again -Mikael

They're releasing the lua code. Which was always in the Dev plan, by the way. That does not constitute making the game free.

I dare you to actually find a concrete example of this misleading advertising. Because I've looked, very hard. And there isn't any. If you'd like a refund, ask and perhaps they will provide. But going in all gung ho with claims of legal entitlement is a threatening and accusatory way to go about it, and so you should be prepared to fully back that up. Maybe let's do this the non lawyery way?

Lol, how do you say things like this when you've linked hype talking about beta versions and whatnot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As advertised? Really? How about a loads of features that are missing? From alpha 6 to release is not really OK in my book(nor in ECC).

What about the fact that Double Fine is releasing source? I'd be basically paying from a freeware game.

My guess is that 1.0 release is going to be at least as buggy as Legends of Pegasus and it was refunded.

And you do not have to patronize, hopefully we're all grown ups?

Link to ECC Misleading advertising.

Cheers again -Mikael

They're releasing the lua code. Which was always in the Dev plan, by the way. That does not constitute making the game free.

I dare you to actually find a concrete example of this misleading advertising. Because I've looked, very hard. And there isn't any. If you'd like a refund, ask and perhaps they will provide. But going in all gung ho with claims of legal entitlement is a threatening and accusatory way to go about it, and so you should be prepared to fully back that up. Maybe let's do this the non lawyery way?

Lol, how do you say things like this when you've linked hype talking about beta versions and whatnot?

I tell you what, if you want to play this game, you build your 'false/misleading advertising case' and I'll build the opposite and we'll see how your 'SOMEONE MENTIONED BETA' interview scraps compare with what I can put together. But no, actually I think that'd be a rather dull exercise, we've been through it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As advertised? Really? How about a loads of features that are missing? From alpha 6 to release is not really OK in my book(nor in ECC).

What about the fact that Double Fine is releasing source? I'd be basically paying from a freeware game.

My guess is that 1.0 release is going to be at least as buggy as Legends of Pegasus and it was refunded.

And you do not have to patronize, hopefully we're all grown ups?

Link to ECC Misleading advertising.

Cheers again -Mikael

They're releasing the lua code. Which was always in the Dev plan, by the way. That does not constitute making the game free.

I dare you to actually find a concrete example of this misleading advertising. Because I've looked, very hard. And there isn't any. If you'd like a refund, ask and perhaps they will provide. But going in all gung ho with claims of legal entitlement is a threatening and accusatory way to go about it, and so you should be prepared to fully back that up. Maybe let's do this the non lawyery way?

This is wrong on so many levels, even if you are right about the last sentence. Promises have been made and features were described as "planned" not as "possible" on the selling Steam site and the dev-plan is not legally relevant, because there was no exact link to it on the Steam site. Discussing about what he might do is not really threatening since it falls under the freedom of speech... and threatening someone with legal consequences when the person itself hasn't done anything wrong is legal, because he tries to convince the other party (DoubleFine) to find a solution without having to use the way of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As advertised? Really? How about a loads of features that are missing? From alpha 6 to release is not really OK in my book(nor in ECC).

What about the fact that Double Fine is releasing source? I'd be basically paying from a freeware game.

My guess is that 1.0 release is going to be at least as buggy as Legends of Pegasus and it was refunded.

And you do not have to patronize, hopefully we're all grown ups?

Link to ECC Misleading advertising.

Cheers again -Mikael

They're releasing the lua code. Which was always in the Dev plan, by the way. That does not constitute making the game free.

I dare you to actually find a concrete example of this misleading advertising. Because I've looked, very hard. And there isn't any. If you'd like a refund, ask and perhaps they will provide. But going in all gung ho with claims of legal entitlement is a threatening and accusatory way to go about it, and so you should be prepared to fully back that up. Maybe let's do this the non lawyery way?

Lol, how do you say things like this when you've linked hype talking about beta versions and whatnot?

I tell you what, if you want to play this game, you build your 'false/misleading advertising case' and I'll build the opposite and we'll see how your 'SOMEONE MENTIONED BETA' interview scraps compare with what I can put together. But no, actually I think that'd be a rather dull exercise, we've been through it all.

Well THAT was a threat... or maybe a "challenge" if you want to put it VERY friendly. Defending DoubleFine or arguing on the legal site as their lawyer is not your job, KestrelPi. If you really think DF is legally right then stand aside and watch what they do instead of arguing for their hypothetical point of view. Don't spend energy on arguing if you are not the party who has to argue ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As advertised? Really? How about a loads of features that are missing? From alpha 6 to release is not really OK in my book(nor in ECC).

What about the fact that Double Fine is releasing source? I'd be basically paying from a freeware game.

My guess is that 1.0 release is going to be at least as buggy as Legends of Pegasus and it was refunded.

And you do not have to patronize, hopefully we're all grown ups?

Link to ECC Misleading advertising.

Cheers again -Mikael

They're releasing the lua code. Which was always in the Dev plan, by the way. That does not constitute making the game free.

I dare you to actually find a concrete example of this misleading advertising. Because I've looked, very hard. And there isn't any. If you'd like a refund, ask and perhaps they will provide. But going in all gung ho with claims of legal entitlement is a threatening and accusatory way to go about it, and so you should be prepared to fully back that up. Maybe let's do this the non lawyery way?

Lol, how do you say things like this when you've linked hype talking about beta versions and whatnot?

I tell you what, if you want to play this game, you build your 'false/misleading advertising case' and I'll build the opposite and we'll see how your 'SOMEONE MENTIONED BETA' interview scraps compare with what I can put together. But no, actually I think that'd be a rather dull exercise, we've been through it all.

Well THAT was a threat... or maybe a "challenge" if you want to put it VERY friendly. Defending DoubleFine or arguing on the legal site as their lawyer is not your job, KestrelPi. If you really think DF is legally right then stand aside and watch what they do instead of arguing for their hypothetical point of view. Don't spend energy on arguing if you are not the party who has to argue ^^

Oh, please. I was speaking hypothetically. Even if I did want to do it (and as I stated at the end of my post, I don't), do you seriously think I was claiming to have any authority w/r/t DF's legal standing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As advertised? Really? How about a loads of features that are missing? From alpha 6 to release is not really OK in my book(nor in ECC).

What about the fact that Double Fine is releasing source? I'd be basically paying from a freeware game.

My guess is that 1.0 release is going to be at least as buggy as Legends of Pegasus and it was refunded.

And you do not have to patronize, hopefully we're all grown ups?

Link to ECC Misleading advertising.

Cheers again -Mikael

They're releasing the lua code. Which was always in the Dev plan, by the way. That does not constitute making the game free.

I dare you to actually find a concrete example of this misleading advertising. Because I've looked, very hard. And there isn't any. If you'd like a refund, ask and perhaps they will provide. But going in all gung ho with claims of legal entitlement is a threatening and accusatory way to go about it, and so you should be prepared to fully back that up. Maybe let's do this the non lawyery way?

This is wrong on so many levels, even if you are right about the last sentence. Promises have been made and features were described as "planned" not as "possible" on the selling Steam site and the dev-plan is not legally relevant, because there was no exact link to it on the Steam site. Discussing about what he might do is not really threatening since it falls under the freedom of speech... and threatening someone with legal consequences when the person itself hasn't done anything wrong is legal, because he tries to convince the other party (DoubleFine) to find a solution without having to use the way of the law.

Show me. Show me the evidence of these promises being misleadingly made. I've looked. I'm willing to be convinced. I have, as a result of this stuff, scoured the internet with a view to trying to understand exactly what was said about the game when it was first announced and subsequently, and so far I have found a mountain of evidence in the "they never specifically committed to features or implied certain features would definitely make it which now haven't" pile, and nothing in the other pile. Not a measly sausage.

The FAQ was stickied on the steam forums a week after early access went live (Around the same time it went live on the website, and the dev plan was linked to on the Steam Announcements page for the game). That's what I can see when I glance at Steam. Before that, the website was linked to from steam and people were directed there for further information. That's the fact of things. Are you going to tell me announcing things on the area of Steam specifically designed for announcing things was misleading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time to dig out this stuff and since I don't want to sue DoubleFine, I don't want to. Lets just search for similarities in our goals... maybe that makes more sense than just arguing without any results.

I just think the game will not be ready when it gets released and I just want to have access to one of the other games, so that I have something else to play, because I have payed some money for Spacebase DF9. There won't be any costs for Double Fine when they just give us some codes for a digital copy of the game... and the fans would be very happy and gain trust again, so that everyone would win.

Can you agree with that thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if you misunderstood my links to threats, I was just pointing out that releasing game unfinished and calling it a day is not appropriate.

And I know your laws differ from our Europeans laws quite drastically, so that was more of an guide to fair trade.

None, but you have talked about laywers and hopefully I don't have sue anybody ever, but still we here in EU have some standards for products we purchase.

Finding those misleading advertisments are extremely easy, just click this.

It does say "Nothing on this list is carved in stone", but dropping everything not done is not how I read that quote.

Perhaps our point of views differ as I'm just a customer and most of you that have replied are on one way or another connected to Double Fine.

I was quite surprised how this got out of hand so quickly, but this just cements my opinion of this game "release".

This will be my last posting to this forum as all I seem to induce is a s*itstorm (pardon).

GL Double Fine on your future endeavours.

Cheers - Mikael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry if you misunderstood my links to threats, I was just pointing out that releasing game unfinished and calling it a day is not appropriate.

And I know your laws differ from our Europeans laws quite drastically, so that was more of an guide to fair trade.

None, but you have talked about laywers and hopefully I don't have sue anybody ever, but still we here in EU have some standards for products we purchase.

Finding those misleading advertisments are extremely easy, just click this.

It does say "Nothing on this list is carved in stone", but dropping everything not done is not how I read that quote.

Perhaps our point of views differ as I'm just a customer and most of you that have replied are on one way or another connected to Double Fine.

I was quite surprised how this got out of hand so quickly, but this just cements my opinion of this game "release".

This will be my last posting to this forum as all I seem to induce is a s*itstorm (pardon).

GL Double Fine on your future endeavours.

Cheers - Mikael

I came on a little strong. I was just annoyed because DF has actually been pretty good in the past about giving refunds to anyone who wanted them, and so I didn't really see why EU law had to enter into it.

For the record, I am from the UK and so I am familiar with the law as it stands.

I genuinely hope you get the refund, it may be best to try Double Fine's support email for that. However, I do not think there is a case for misleading advertising here, and I genuinely do believe that DF were very clear at each step, particularly in the early days of the Early Access. In that list you linked I think "Below is a giant list of all the things we might possibly do at some point." is about as clear as they could put 'we don't know how many of these things will make it.'

Where I agree with some of the others that they could have been clearer, is that they should have started, earlier, indicating that development was winding down so as not to appear so sudden.

That's where I stand with this. Wish you luck with the refund, but don't think that EU law can help you in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering Mr. Schafer refers to the broken alpha as a 'beautiful and complete' game in his latest addition to his Steam response, I wouldn't expect a refund any time soon. They're committed to continue selling it as well.

You can laugh sadly at that along with the rest of us I guess though if it helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering Mr. Schafer refers to the broken alpha as a 'beautiful and complete' game in his latest addition to his Steam response, I wouldn't expect a refund any time soon. They're committed to continue selling it as well.

You can laugh sadly at that along with the rest of us I guess though if it helps.

The 1.0 you haven't yet played, you mean?

Anyway, for reference, Double Fine also stand by Broken Age. As they should, because it's great. They've also given a refund to people who have asked for one, because of whatever they were angry about.

So let's not make assumptions, mm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Item was sold as advertised, therefor no refund? You understand how early access works, right?

Indeed, for Early Access games you pay for what you get now, potential future updates are only a bonus. As such, you should only pay for Early Access games if you really want to play it now or really want to support the developer, not because of what it might become in the future. In that case just wait for the future to happen, which in this case didn't. Play it safe, don't go throw away your money and then be pissed about it.

I only bought one Early Access game and it was just before the already announced real release was about to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I think you should calm down. While I do understand why you are asking for a refund, I think context is important here. Based solely on speculation, I think it looks like double fine is running unexpectedly low on money. I've been following the Broken Age documentaries, and from that I get the feeling BA is over budget again. If I had to guess I'd say they're $1.5-$2 million dollars over budget right now and likely have a few more months of work to do. Just like with the Brutal Legend port double fine are trying to get some cash flow, unfortunately due to Spacebase's poor performance and early development they didn't get enough to cover both Broken Age and Spacebase. I'm sure you guys are upset about Spacebase's situation, I know I am, but maybe we could be a little easier on the dev team.

Don't take this as me defending them. From the videos that I've seen, it was pretty obvious Tim Schafer was the bottleneck, trying to do 3 jobs at once and not having anyone to help him write BA. I'm betting this is happening again. I could see all the hard work and passion the team put into making these games and keeping the games going. Especially, Greg Rice. You sir have the patience of Buddha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 1.0 you haven't yet played, you mean?

No, the game as it stands now. Regardless, even if that's what he meant, you're welcome to strain credulity and think what we have now plus a few weeks of scattered attempts at bug-fixing will transform it completely if you want I guess. I've noticed the bugs that never got fixed over months and find that extremely dubious.

So let's not make assumptions, mm?

How is it an assumption that refunds will not be given on a product that doesn't violate the letter of the law and in DF's eyes meets the spirit as well? Okay, I admit it, I'm strongly assuming they won't be giving refunds en masse. I will gladly eat my words if I get my money back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have bought the game and not yet played it once you could probably contact steam support for refund or double fine but if you have played a lot then chances of refund are zero. Unless double fine themselves decide people can get refunds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well THAT was a threat... or maybe a "challenge" if you want to put it VERY friendly. Defending DoubleFine or arguing on the legal site as their lawyer is not your job, KestrelPi. If you really think DF is legally right then stand aside and watch what they do instead of arguing for their hypothetical point of view. Don't spend energy on arguing if you are not the party who has to argue ^^

It isn't really so persuasive, to me, for you to say the people on the other side of the debate shouldn't argue for their opinions. Especially when you're clearly arguing for your opinions.

As for refunds, it's entirely up to DF+Steam. Lawsuit seems pretty unlikely. Can you imagine if you said something was 'maybe possible' and someone sued you if wound up not happening? Seems pretty frivolous to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About all I can say. Doublefine can go jump in a pit of piss for all I care. Such a cool company. Such a scammy company. 3 cash grab early access burns in a row. Lovely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys, I think you should calm down. While I do understand why you are asking for a refund, I think context is important here. Based solely on speculation, I think it looks like double fine is running unexpectedly low on money. I've been following the Broken Age documentaries, and from that I get the feeling BA is over budget again. If I had to guess I'd say they're $1.5-$2 million dollars over budget right now and likely have a few more months of work to do. Just like with the Brutal Legend port double fine are trying to get some cash flow, unfortunately due to Spacebase's poor performance and early development they didn't get enough to cover both Broken Age and Spacebase. I'm sure you guys are upset about Spacebase's situation, I know I am, but maybe we could be a little easier on the dev team.

Welcome to the forum. This is quite a speculative point, so just FYI I span it off into another discussion in DF General chat, with the theme of 'what's next?'

http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewthread/14996/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hiya there! As this game is pretty far from advertised and EU laws states on online shopping:

Under EU law, if the items turn out to be faulty or not as advertised, you have the same 2-year guarantee as if you had bought it in a shop.

When will you begin refunds on EU area?

Cheers Mikael

Erm. You have WEEKS, not YEARS. You can't use something for two years and then suddenly claim it doesn't do what you want it to do(!). The lack of common sense on display in these forums is often astounding.

http://bit.ly/1vaScdL

Also, there hasn't been any evidence at all that DF have promised a single feature that hasn't been delivered. In fact, when you buy an Early Access game, you agreed that it may NEVER be finished:

http://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/?snr=1_200_200_Early+Access

Quote: "...you should only buy an Early Access game if you are excited about playing it in its current state."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hiya there! As this game is pretty far from advertised and EU laws states on online shopping:

Under EU law, if the items turn out to be faulty or not as advertised, you have the same 2-year guarantee as if you had bought it in a shop.

When will you begin refunds on EU area?

Cheers Mikael

Erm. You have WEEKS, not YEARS. You can't use something for two years and then suddenly claim it doesn't do what you want it to do(!). The lack of common sense on display in these forums is often astounding.

http://bit.ly/1vaScdL

Also, there hasn't been any evidence at all that DF have promised a single feature that hasn't been delivered. In fact, when you buy an Early Access game, you agreed that it may NEVER be finished:

http://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/?snr=1_200_200_Early+Access

Quote: "...you should only buy an Early Access game if you are excited about playing it in its current state."

You are totally right about the usual time to get a game back to the store.

But... Double Fine advertised the game as something that you can get an "Early Access" to and watch how it gets finished and maybe make a few more features possible. What they kept secret, was the information that the game was being funded and not just supported by the "EA" feature. It should have been described as a (crowd-)founding and not as an Early Access, at least after DoubleFine had payed back the investments to Indiefund. So the sell methode itself was already a "false advertisement" in my opinion.

But since DoubleFine has used all the gained money and put it into the game, I just don't think that they would have the money for refunds and I don't want any, since the team behind it may has worked a lot to make the current state possible.

I just want to get a free key for Steam from DoubleFine for a game with a more full experience that I expected from this game to become. Giving out numbers and letters in a row to just give away a digital copy is costing DoubleFine nothing and would make US FANS very, very happy... and we could just say: Okay, we are happy, Peace out!

That's what I would like to see in the future :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But... Double Fine advertised the game as something that you can get an "Early Access" to and watch how it gets finished and maybe make a few more features possible.

Sure, and the list of features that may have been made possible by EA funding was the published dev plans.

What they kept secret, was the information that the game was being funded and not just supported by the "EA" feature. It should have been described as a (crowd-)founding and not as an Early Access, at least after DoubleFine had payed back the investments to Indiefund. So the sell methode itself was already a "false advertisement" in my opinion.

I don't understand what difference you see between "funded" and "supported"—I am also curious if you can point me to any documented example of a developer using Early Access where the EA funds were NOT used to fund the development of the game, where those funds were NOT needed, and one presumes ... were pure profit for the developers, who already had enough money before putting an unfinished game up for sale.

...I guess eventually Minecraft switched to something like that, but their later Alpha+Beta sales being pure profits was only possible because development was being funded by their early Alpha sales. So even Minecraft was effectively an EA game whose development was funded by EA sales.

That's the biggest, most important point of putting a game up for Early Access sales—getting the funds to complete the development. If you saw Early Access advertised in some other way, I would love to have a look at that advertisement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what difference you see between "funded" and "supported"—I am also curious if you can point me to any documented example of a developer using Early Access where the EA funds were NOT used to fund the development of the game, where those funds were NOT needed, and one presumes ... were pure profit for the developers, who already had enough money before putting an unfinished game up for sale.

...I guess eventually Minecraft switched to something like that, but their later Alpha+Beta sales being pure profits was only possible because development was being funded by their early Alpha sales. So even Minecraft was effectively an EA game whose development was funded by EA sales.

That's the biggest, most important point of putting a game up for Early Access sales—getting the funds to complete the development. If you saw Early Access advertised in some other way, I would love to have a look at that advertisement.

I'm curious if you have documented evidence of a developer using EA funds to first pay off the investors who got the game to Alpha 1 and only afterwards to fund the rest of development? I don't want to pick on Double Fine anymore, but you are acting like such a plan is the most natural thing in the world, should be expected without need for explanation, and makes good sense for the business and consumers. I think in the vast majority of cases all EA funds go to future development. I think that is the expectation. Committing to spending them on prior development before hitting future milestones runs the risk that absolutely NO funds will be left over for future development (in this case if they only raised $399k, for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this