Two year guarantee on goods could radically shift the design and retail process
The European Commission may be about to throw the entire game design process into disarray in announcing its intent to enforce a two-year ‘guarantee’ on games.
Under the EU Sales and Guarantees Directive, physical goods have to be in line with certain commercial conditions. The directive states that “sellers of consumer goods within the EU are obliged to guarantee the conformity of the goods with the contract for a period of two years.”
The infinitely complex concoction of code, shapes and sounds we call videogames are exempt from this condition, yet EU Commissioners Viviane Reding and Meglena Kuneva want this to change.
"The current status quo, where licensed products are exempt from EU law, is unsatisfactory," said Helen Kearns, spokesperson for Commissioner Kuneva.
Like all interpretable laws, the EU Sales and Guarantees Directive could mean that consumers have the right to get a refund on games if they are deemed faulty. Therefore, a glitch in a game that could be argued as having a significantly detrimental effect on the play experience could be eligible for refund within 24 months after the sale of the game.
Advertisement
Kearns did accept that such a ruling would give consumers more opportunities to abuse the system. "On the one hand there is the risk of abuse,” she said, “but on the other it's not a good enough reason to say basic consumer protection should not apply."
The whole process could lead to a radical shift in the design process, the second-hand market, and even retailer-publisher relations.
If the accident-prone Driv3r was released under these conditions, for example, the game would be more likely to be refunded than end up in the pre-owned bins. Consumers would also have the right to get a full £40 refund 23 months after the game's launch; at a time when the its trade-in value would be below a quarter of that price.
This in turn could lead to retailers avoiding stocking games known to be of questionable quality, which in turn would lead to publishers seeking more vigorous testing from developers.
This could lead to a powerful constraint on what can be released without fear of refund, meaning that ambitious projects may not find support. It could also mean that many publishers and developers will turn to digital products, where these rules are not likely to apply.
The Business Software Alliance (BSA) told the BBC that such proposals are broken.
“Digital content is not a tangible good and should not be subject to the same liability rules as toasters,” said Francisco Mingorance, the BSA's director of public policy.
(It should be noted that the games industry’s coinage of digital content is not the same as the mass media’s, which uses the term to describe game content in general.)
“[Games are] contractually licensed to consumers and not sold,” Mingorance added. "These contracts are governed by civil law that provide consumers with multitude of remedies for breach of contract."
Tiga CEO Richard Wilson took a more diplomatic view.
"Consumers need good quality products - that is only reasonable - but if the legislation is too heavy-handed it could make publishers and developers very cautious. Games takes years to develop and software teams often have to predict what new technology will be in place when the game is actually finished,"
He added that the EU Commission has to be careful not to suffocate new ideas. "If there is an onus on developers to have software that is 'near perfect' then it could stifle new ideas as people could end up just playing it safe," he said.
Does this mean I can get a refund from things like game aps on Facebook every time they crash on my PC...?
Does it extend to the world of PCs and online retail becuase if it does the biggest problem will rest on Microsofts shoulders..... getting rid of every single bug and compatibility issue in Windows is not a task I would envy.
This sounds unworkable when they think it through.... unless of course their plan is to victimise the sales of boxed console software only....
It's remarkably unlikely that this policy will spread to digital games, if at all.
But I think you're right to make the distinction, Jon. If implemented, the directive would further separate the production policies between boxed and digital games. It would make one an overwhelmingly overcomplicated task, the other a refuge for developers and publishers.
This is unworkable and virtually unenforcible on PC's. Any game that has an issue may be the result of bad drivers or other installed software; it would be a nightmare proving the game was at fault unless it was so glaringly obvious that the publisher deserved to be punished for it.
The point has already been made that PC games suffer many more problems, often requiring patches after release for hardware specific issues. Testing on every single system configuration that your game will be played on is simply not feasible, but even more so for independent developers. The easiest platform for cheap publishing by far is the PC, and some of the most innovative games come from this source too. This proposal would do nothing more than stifle the art form.
Well, it's about time something like this hit the games industry. I personally am tired of the "release it broken, patch it later" philosophy of a lot of developers. It would certainly have hit a publisher I worked with a few years back, who pushed out broken pre-release code because they were so impatient. The code was broken to the point that the game was impossible to finish, they should have been hammered for it, yet they weren't.
I can't think of any other industry that treats its user base with such disregard, and expects them to tolerate mistake after mistake after mistake. It never offers the customer the option of replacing a faulty piece of software, with a new disc with the fix incorporated, and it should. Instead, it's "we'll release a patch", which still leaves the original disc as faulty.
Bottom line is, if you can't release a game working, then don't release it! If the bug is really accidental, then fair enough, but many games are released with known bugs, simply based on the fact that they can patch it later. You only have to look at how many games have patches released on release day.
As for Richard WIlson's comments...
"Games takes years to develop and software teams often have to predict what new technology will be in place when the game is actually finished"
Not if it's a console game for a specific platform they don't.
"If there is an onus on developers to have software that is 'near perfect' then it could stifle new ideas as people could end up just playing it safe."
So it's too much to expect working products is it? Good job the rest of technology doesn't have the same attitude, or we'd still be riding horse and carts and waving flags to communicate. And we certainly wouldn't have those new-fangled TV thingummy-jigs to play those games on.
The attitude "either we are allowed to release something broken, or we'll release something simple" paints a pretty poor picture of the games industry.
The only good news that will come out of this law is maybe just maybe they will take there time to finish the games that they are working on so that the amount of patches they need will be less instead of thinking about how much money they will make when they sell it.
I agree with you, Lee, the complacency that comes with knowing a game can be patched is a growing problem. I understand how deeply unprofessional this kind of attitude is for any entertainment industry, especially for one that asks for £40 or $60 or €55 per performance.
But the Commission’s proposals are worryingly heavy-handed.
Yes, I’m sure the initiative would eradicate poorly-tested software, but at the same time it would bring in a frightening number of problems as well (some of which I’ve mentioned in the article.)
It’s a step forward and a lunge backwards.
It’s hard to take the Commission’s proposals seriously, because if enforce they would very likely set the European games industry back a number of years. Projects would be even bigger safety shots than they are today, confidence between publishers and retailers would be in tatters, and developers would be working longer than they do now for less of a game.
When you take that into consideration, coupled with the fact that it’s only a minority of titles that have game-breaking glitches, I would be stunned to see these proposals go through.
It is absolutly time for this!
I'm sick and tired of spending my heard earned money on things the developers KNOW for a fact to be flawed, and not informed of this in the first place, and then further insulted buy ELUA's that preclude any remedy for said flaws.
It's time we made these thieves get their houses in order, and if unable, then get out of the business.
Pushing crap code out the door onto a defenseless public should not be a road to riches.
Those who make decent products have nothing to fear, those who want the gravytrain to keep running will cry a storm of tears.
It is actually very plausible that such a system could work. However, the EU should sponsor software that detects where the software broke or if there is a hardware incompatibility.
Also, more reasons to return a game should include false advertising and misleading advertising and misleading statements on the game box.
It is not enough that a game run smoothly. The consumer should be protected from games that make empty promises or even false promises.
Though it definately needs to be tackled, I'm not honestly convinced that more/expanded laws is the best solution to this probem.
What games are you guys buying? I can't remember the last time I bought a game that had a major flaw in it. Granted I don't buy the $10 bargain bin stuff, but I buy at least 1-2 major titles every month. Those of you that are complaining... please list a major game title released in the last 2 years you couldn't finish.
Anyone who's bought and played Paradox' HoI3 will know there is a desperate need for legislation intended for these kinds of game development companies that deceitfully promote a broken game and then fraudulently sell it to unsuspecting customers who are unable to get a refund. It's time this kind of abuse was stopped in in tracks.
