CEX and the UK Sale of Goods Act

[Mr Allen]

Topic.

Anyway I bought Tennis World Your on Xbox from CEX in Town yesterday, got home and installed it and tried to play it, but the yellow dot they use for the ball is so small I can't see it...

Anyway with this in mind, I packaged up the game, and armed with the receipt I went back to CEX this morning to see if I could get a refund on it, they said no even though I'd returned less than 24 hours later with the game and the receipt, apparently Store policy states that if you return the game within 48 hours, you get a credit note to the value of what you bought.

Thing is, many years ago I studied the Sale of Goods Act when I was doing NVQ Retail at College, so my knowledge might admittedly be a bit out of date 21 years later, but is this legal? Surely if the game is unplayable it's not fit for my purpose so I was entitled to a refund?

And no, I am not getting new glasses, I have an eye test booked for this Tuesday morning anyway as I have one routinely every year.

Also, I am aware of Google.

 

[Judge]

The Sale of Goods Act of 1979 was replaced by the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. Under this law it appears that your concerns would involve considerations of the following, which applies with or without a sales voucher:

* Satisfactory quality As Described
* Fit for a purpose And lasts a Reasonable length of Time

Small wonder the URL below refers to this as the "SAD FART Rule". IMO not all that consumer friendly, nor particularly funny either. It would appear that the retailer is using these guidelines to dismiss a complete refund as technically there's nothing functionally wrong with the product. But if they are willing to give you a credit, it adds to a notion that they are acting in good faith. Especially when it's in writing.

That the proximate cause for your returning the product is your vision rather than the product itself, which is not their problem according to this source: Consumer Rights

Consumer Rights Act 2015

 

[MitchM]

while i am not aware of things like this a little side note is, sadly this is something i have been trying to fight for a while, things like that are accessibility issues but there is nothing legally compelling video game makers to make sure that their games meet accessibility guidelines accept when it comes to the way they communicate. When a game maker puts a good accessibility feature in their game, its because someone pushed for it or thought it was a good idea to have it rather then just pushing the game out without caring about those features. I suspect you will have the issue what ever platform you play on.

 

[Judge]

while i am not aware of things like this a little side note is, sadly this is something i have been trying to fight for a while, things like that are accessibility issues but there is nothing legally compelling video game makers to make sure that their games meet accessibility guidelines accept when it comes to the way they communicate. When a game maker puts a good accessibility feature in their game, its because someone pushed for it or thought it was a good idea to have it rather then just pushing the game out without caring about those features. I suspect you will have the issue what ever platform you play on.

Good point. Likely compounded by cost considerations and demographics.That if there aren't a significant number of potential customers with hand/eye coordination concerns, then it wouldn't make sense for them to consider the expense.

However I can't help but wonder how many more potential gamers out there would love to play these games if the developers could bring their difficulty and graphics down a few notches as an option.

Kind of like older flight sims where you could fly in stone cold reality with all the inherent difficulties, or in an "easy" flight mode which keeps players trying to get better at it so they can move up the ladder in terms of difficulty. Of course it was also a consideration in terms of whether one had a robust video card, ram or cpu. Lesser frame rates and less detail, but an attempt to make game play tolerable for a broader audience.

But yes, as you pointed out there are no legal requirements on the part of developers to make such considerations. And that the industry at large probably regards most gamers in terms of a very narrow target audience who consistently demand a much more difficult product to play in every way.

This was an industry I once worked in many years ago, making product websites. I know from the inside that it's all about satisfying shareholders' expectations first and foremost.

 

[MitchM]

from the few game studios and platforms i have been able to talk to, its honestly down to "they didn't realize", which, TBH is a rather poor excuse. I make a similar argument about captions and the Forza Horizon 4 series in this video

they spent a lot of time getting the cars and the behaviors to be just right, but then they forget the simple things.

 

[Judge]

from the few game studios and platforms i have been able to talk to, its honestly down to "they didn't realize", which, TBH is a rather poor excuse.

I suspect they have people in marketing who are acutely aware of such demographic considerations. But that they may be deemed cost prohibitive. Not something they want to share with the public.

Not so much in terms of the amount of money, but the amount of time taken to develop a product to a much broader audience. I know firsthand from working for one of the major publishers back in the late 90s that time was absurdly critical in meeting shareholder expectations. Even when they knowingly released a very buggy product, promising software patches later than sooner.

My personal experience was in observing that outside developers were usually quite conscientious in wanting to meet the expectations of customers. However given their contractual obligations to the publisher, such considerations were often skewed in favor of the publisher's shareholders.