Owners of buggy or glitchy video games are entitled to a full refund, Trading Standards has said on record.

Rules state that all goods should be of "satisfactory quality" it's said, which means (at launch at least) you should be entitled to your Black Ops PS3 and Fallout: New Vegas money back.

Speaking in a recent interview, Joint Lead Officer Sylvia Rook from the Trading Standards Institute said: "When consumers buy goods their rights are always against the retailer, so if there is a problem with a game, the consumer should return it to the retailer.

"The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) states that goods should be of satisfactory quality, fit for their purpose and as described. If the game is faulty, then the consumer should be entitled to a refund from the retailer (although it is not unreasonable for the retailer to return it to the manufacturer in order to ensure it is, indeed, faulty and it is not operator error, or a problem with the consumer's computer)."

Rook added that gamers wanting a refund should stop using the game immediately, otherwise they may only be entitled to claim for damages.

"If consumers wish to exert their statutory rights, they should stop using the game immediately as if they continue to use it they might lose the right to reject it and might then be entitled only to damages," Rook said.

"If the consumer wishes, they can also request a repair or replacement, but they don't have to accept this if they do not want to."

Treyarch put out another Black Ops PS3 patch earlier this week which hopefully sorted issues.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar ... ?id=281679

I'd be curious to know the TS view on 'waiting for a patch' and promises to that effect which didn't work out (as with PS3 BLOPS)

well, thats Bethesda (fallout 3) and GSC (s.t.a.l.k.e.r) screwed

OMFG! They've changed their tune since I wrote my dissertation earlier this year!

I think that there will be a number of games that have that problem. It will be interesting to see what the impact will be on the industry. If too many games are returned they might actually have to wait till they are actually finished rather than trying to get away with patches. Not many companies might be able to finish the games on budget.

This is still very much a grey area legally, the courts still haven't decided if software (inc. games) amounts to a "good" (where SOG Act apples) or a "service" (where it doesn't).

TBH either the OFT needs to publish clear guidance on the issue, or there needs to be a test case going as far as the Court of Appeal, in order to set a precedent.

Until that happens, you're going to have to rely on the good humour of the retailer, or try and win in the County Court.

Yes it needs to be clarified. I have had Starcraft 2 since launch day and it has had a number of patches, but the game has been pretty stable and playable. There was a problem with the first update and left many people without access for a short while. After that though every update has been fine, so not worthy of a refund. If it were clearer then developers might aim just to clear the legal minimum for launch then hope that there are not too many problems. Though much software is practically much a beta version anyway. If companies were honest about it then they could get people to beta test and they could come up with a better product in the process.

It's not like the good ol' days when if there was a bug in the software, you would call a freephone number, they'd have someone appropriately trained to understand the bug and create a patch to fix it, free of charge.

Sounds a bit like the NHS