If you think that I don't get it, then you obviously didn't read my entire post, notably this sentence:So those who find the refund in this case to be objectionable object to the fact that the customer found objectionable content based on his religious beliefs. What difference does it make? If he had embarked upon a crusade to have the game banned so that no one could play it he would then be trying to impose his religious beliefs upon others, in which case I would be ranting, too. However, all he actually did was complain about being personally offended and demanded a refund. It was a personal matter that was handled in a personal way. Where is the controversy in that? "Companies only abide by it to retain good customer faith".....
....which keeps the customer happy and in the long term is good for business. Â I entirely understand this, and thought the implication would save me from having to state what I meant literally. Â I guess not. Â And what evidence am I missing here? Â He objected to a baptism in game, wished for a refund, and recieved one. Â What's to miss exactly? Â My opinion in here is no more arrogant than anyone else who is stating their opinion based upon what is known, yours included. Â Unless you'd like to enlighten me on something that you're aware of that I'm not. Â I don't need any evidence to know that a guy got a refund because he found material in his game that did not agree with his personal beliefs.
MirkoS77
Religious gamer receives refund for forced Baptism in Bioshock Infinite
This topic is locked from further discussion.
this this this he paid $60 to blow the hell out of hundreds of virtual people for entertainment. i hate people like this"As baptism of the Holy spirit is at the center of Christianity--of which I am a devout believer--I am basically being forced to make a choice between committing extreme blasphemy by my actions in choosing to accept this 'choice' or forced to quit playing the game before it even really starts," Malmberg said. JML897
LOL this guy is even more full of shit than I first thought. What did he think would happen after he got past the baptism scene, exactly? Did he think the game is full of holding hands and hugging each other?
"Forcefully being baptized in a video game is against my religion"
"Yeah I bought this game that's all about going around and shooting people, what's your point?"
MrGeezer
Now, when you say "They should be responsible for their emotional landscape" What does that entail? Are you simply saying artists should care and perhaps change their art if it offends enough people they deem significant, or that they should in fact offer refunds just as liberally as they should for, say, a game-breaking bug.
I know it's been said, but I think it requires reiteration: Valve probably doesn't actually agree with this guy's view on things, or necessarily considers his complaint reasonable. They probably just saw the guy was like 10 minutes into the game and didn't consider it worth the effort to fight giving back his $60. You can say that's a problem, but I think Valve knows how to run its own business. I doubt the guy even expected to get the money back. I wouldn't if I were in his position.
[QUOTE="Articuno76"] The problem isn't that the guy was offended. Nor are people annoyed at this guy offended by him. So there isn't any hypocrisy there. What is annoying here is that this guy feels that he is above getting his feelings hurt and that his feelings are other people's responsibility (which they most certainly are not). It's got nothing to do with the business practices (which is why all the other practices you listed in other posts are not relevant) but the fact that men-children like this are getting away with acting this way and being treated as if that is an acceptable way to behave. The fact that there are far more valid reasons to demand a refund (not dependant on factors in the consumers control, unlike say...emotional control) that are not listened to only sours things further. I'm not looking for the industry to cater to me. Which is precisely why this guys' complaints are so damn irksome. I don't go around demanding refunds for all the game design choices I don't like. I just don't buy the next game if it sucks as much. I do that on the mature understanding that I made my own concious purchase decision. Now if this guy had been massively misled by marketing that is another story. My complaints about games are totally more valid than this guys' complaint, why? Well simple. My complaints are actually about the games (something the developers can do something about) rather than my own emotional landscape (something that no one other than myself can be expected to take responsibility for). My complaints are not necessarily more valid but they are in this case just because they happen to be mature criticisms made with an understanding that I am not entitled to the changes (I won't ask for a refund if I don't get them) but that I want them and if I don't get them I will exercise my consumer responsibility and not buy the next game...pretty simple really. I'm certainly not going to try and have my cake and eat it.MrGeezerWrong. Essentially all this guy did was dislike aspects of the game and then complain about it. You can argue that he should have researched the game better, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that there are people out there who bought Sim City and were then surprised to find that it requires an always online connection. You wrote, "I don't go around demanding refunds for all the game design choices I don't like. I just don't buy the next game if it sucks as much." That's exactly what I'm talking about. "Me, me, me." You're looking at this entirely from the perspective of what you want, how you act, what you would have done, as if that's somehow the model of responsible consumer behavior. Who makes that determination, YOU? That's every bit as self-centered as the guy in the article. What makes you think that the correct course of action when you're dissatisfied with a game is to just not buy the next game? How are people supposed to know what's wrong with the game if you keep your mouth shut and don't tell them? You wrote, My complaints are not necessarily more valid but they are in this case just because they happen to be mature criticisms made with an understanding that I am not entitled to the changes (I won't ask for a refund if I don't get them) but that I want them and if I don't get them I will exercise my consumer responsibility and not buy the next game...pretty simple really." Uh...what? So you want developers and publishers to actually change how they make games? The guy in the article wasn't even asking for that, all he wanted was a refund. But either way, you are him are in the same boat. You aren'tcontent to spend money on games you don't like, people like you are strong-arming the companies just as much as him. In both cases, this boils down to the exact same situation of "please the customer or lose money." And just as he isn't entitled to not getting his feelings hurt, you aren't entitled to a fun game, you aren't entitled to a game that you enjoy. But companies are sure as hell gonna lose your money if they don't give you what you want. It's EXACTLY the same. You're also wrong about something else. Developers (and artists in general, for that matter) are ABSOLUTELY partly responsible for the audiences emotions. They make assumptions about the audience's "emotional landscape"in order to inform how to make the game, they make the game with the intention of ALTERING the audience's "emotional landscape". Obviously not ALL art is like that, but a huge amount of it is designed to make the audience feel what they want you to feel. They are ABSOLUTELY responsible for the audience's emotions. No it's not the same. Because I understand that my wants alone are not good alone worthy of being listening to just by virtue of being my own. Not buying a game is my own right (as it is my own decision). You're muddying the waters by talking about a purchase already made as if they are equal to potential future purchases (which I only brought up to illustrate a point).
We are talking about purchases already made here. If you make a purchase willingly then you accept the responsibility of that having made the purchase. I am not however going to turn around after buying a product (which works perfectly fine and does not damage my hardware) and demand a refund, even if I am not happy. You said I am not entitled to a fun game. I totally agree. And for that reason if a game isn't fun or even if it offends me I will not ask for a refund. I will not do that. Why? Because I know full well that these are not good, valid reasons for getting a refund for a perfectly functional product that I willingly bought of my volition...I accept the responsibility of my purchase in it's totality and don't shirk the responsibility onto any third party.
That doesn't mean I can't complain about the game design choices of the game I purchased however (I don't have a problem with people debating over the content of games at all)...it just means I am not going to push the responsibility of having made the purchase onto someone else based on some misdirected idea that I am beyond being offended.
And artists are not responsible for people's emotions, only for providing the stimulus to change them, in either case they are not responsible for people's purchases (which in this case someone is attempting to shirk responsibility of because of his emotions), and any emotion even if it was instilled by the artist would still not be a good enough reason to justify a refund (yes, that includes boredom because a game sucks).
The reason I bought the point on emotional landscapes up was to show how silly it is for people to push their own responsibility of purchase onto a third party because of their own emotions. Especially when those emotions are not necessarily of the making of the content creator (but even if we can say they are, it still would not be valid).
Companies not getting my money for future purchases because I exercise my right as a consumer is completely different from companies not getting my money because I purchased their game and then decided I wanted a refund for it...just because I 'felt' like it.
edit: Â I didn't argue that he should have researched the game better. Â He is allowed to make purchases without any research whatsoever...as long as he takes responsibility for it I don't see the problem.
edit2: Yeah, had a bit of clarity in my thought: Â When I said that artists are not responsible for people's emotions (in this case: offence) I am pretty sure I'm right here. Â More precisely what the artist is responsible for is 'insult'. Â What we have here is someone taking their problem (their offence, not the insult) and demanding a refund for it from a third-party. Â
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]homegirl2180
Now, when you say "They should be responsible for their emotional landscape" What does that entail? Are you simply saying artists should care and perhaps change their art if it offends enough people they deem significant, or that they should in fact offer refunds just as liberally as they should for, say, a game-breaking bug.
I know it's been said, but I think it requires reiteration: Valve probably doesn't actually agree with this guy's view on things, or necessarily considers his complaint reasonable. They probably just saw the guy was like 10 minutes into the game and didn't consider it worth the effort to fight giving back his $60. You can say that's a problem, but I think Valve knows how to run its own business. I doubt the guy even expected to get the money back. I wouldn't if I were in his position.
I'm simply saying that it's erroneous to act like "it's not their fault someone felt that way about it" when it's designed to trigger people's emotions. I'm not the one who came up with the "emotional landscape" thing in the first place, so maybe I'm misinterpreting what he was trying to say. Regardless, Valve probably doesn't give a refund to every single person who asks for one. That guy probably also doesn't request a refund every time he has a problem with a game. We can speculate all day about how they really felt, but that's beside the point. What we know is that the dude complained and Valve gave him his money back. It's a total non-story.
 No it's not the same. Because I understand that my wants alone are not good alone worthy of being listening to just by virtue of being my own. Not buying a game is my own right (as it is my own decision). You're muddying the waters by talking about a purchase already made as if they are equal to potential future purchases (which I only brought up to illustrate a point).
We are talking about purchases already made here. If you make a purchase willingly then you accept the responsibility of that having made the purchase. I am not however going to turn around after buying a product (which works perfectly fine and does not damage my hardware) and demand a refund, even if I am not happy. You said I am not entitled to a fun game. I totally agree. And for that reason if a game isn't fun or even if it offends me I will not ask for a refund. I will not do that. Why? Because I know full well that these are not good, valid reasons for getting a refund for a perfectly functional product that I willingly bought of my volition...I accept the responsibility of my purchase in it's totality and don't shirk the responsibility onto any third party.
That doesn't mean I can't complain about the game design choices of the game I purchased however (I don't have a problem with people debating over the content of games at all)...it just means I am not going to push the responsibility of having made the purchase onto someone else based on some misdirected idea that I am beyond being offended.
And artists are not responsible for people's emotions, only for providing the stimulus to change them, in either case they are not responsible for people's purchases (which in this case someone is attempting to shirk responsibility of because of his emotions), and any emotion even if it was instilled by the artist would still not be a good enough reason to justify a refund (yes, that includes boredom because a game sucks).
The reason I bought the point on emotional landscapes up was to show how silly it is for people to push their own responsibility of purchase onto a third party because of their own emotions. Especially when those emotions are not necessarily of the making of the content creator (but even if we can say they are, it still would not be valid).
Companies not getting my money for future purchases because I exercise my right as a consumer is completely different from companies not getting my money because I purchased their game and then decided I wanted a refund for it...just because I 'felt' like it.
edit: Â I didn't argue that he should have researched the game better. Â He is allowed to make purchases without any research whatsoever...as long as he takes responsibility for it I don't see the problem.
edit2: Yeah, had a bit of clarity in my thought: Â When I said that artists are not responsible for people's emotions (in this case: offence) I am pretty sure I'm right here. Â More precisely what the artist is responsible for is 'insult'. Â What we have here is someone taking their problem (their offence, not the insult) and demanding a refund for it from a third-party. Â
Articuno76
Excellent post, and 100% spot on. Â Very eloquently put.
No it's not the same. Because...someone taking their problem (their offence, not the insult) and demanding a refund for it from a third-party. Â
Articuno76
The party you bought the product from isn't a third party. Â There's nothing unreasonable about a consumer demanding a refund for a product they are dissatisfied with from the party they bought it from, it happens all the time. Â If you buy something from Walmart that fails to meet your expectations, do you return it to Walmart or to the manufacturer? Â Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that once a purchase is made the consumer has irrevocable responsibility for that purchase decision thus a refund is never justified under any circumstances. Â That's about as unreasonable a proposition as I've ever heard.
What are you on about? are you really this shallow and limited that you cannot understand another persons view and be glad that his views are taken serious, despite how insane they may be from a company like Valve. I think it shows Valve as AAA company.[QUOTE="Jacanuk"][QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]
A religious, Christian gamer demanded and received a full refund from Valve for forced Baptism in Bioshock Infinite. He has no problem digitally murdering pixelized NPC's but a fake Baptism was apparently more than he could bear. When does the self entitlement stop and companies start standing their ground?
HipHopBeats
Why even have a Mature rating on games at all? Should the fake Baptism be removed to appease all religious gamers? No religious gamer had a problem with having to sell your soul in order to successfully complete the Theives Guild in Skyrim. God Of War, Dark Souls praise the sun, and so on. If dude is that sensitive with religious beliefs, he shouldn't be playing any violent video games or watching any violent movies period. It's nothing more than self entitlement.
Hmm, you seem to be taking this "refund" way to personal. In honesty who in the world does it hurt that one guy has gotten good customer service from a gaming company? In fact doesn't it bode well for the rest of us when it comes to how serious Valve takes valid and just claims.... Also try not to compare rating, games where the content is optional or is clearly stated what kind of game it is with a game where something is MANDATORY.Forgive me for not replying to this in-depth. I just got off work and I have to be back at work again very early tomorrow, so I'll give a more thorough reply later. But let me just reply to one little thing that stood out. You wrote, "Companies not getting my money for future purchases because I exercise my right as a consumer is completely different from companies not getting my money because I purchased their game and then decided I wanted a refund for it...just because I 'felt' like it." To that I say, what? Your "right as a consumer" is ALSO to complain about anything you have a problem with, and yes...to even go so far as to try to get a refund. The guy in the article acted 100% consistently with his "rights as a consumer". Also, from a customer relations standpoint, why do you think he got a refund? Probably because denying him a refund would dissuade him from making future purchases. It's still the same thing. In both cases, the leverage that consumers have against companies is to not make future purchases. The $60 he spent on the game is irrelevant, his entire baragining chip is that if he isn't satisfied, he won't make future purchases. Also, while I don't know how Valve determines when to issue a refund, I wouldn't doubt for a second that purchasing history plays a role. I worked at a cellphone company (that I won't name), I work at a restaurant (that I won't name), and that's how it (justifiably) worked at those places. If someone made a request for a refund, whether reasonable or not, part of the procedure is to determine how much money they are giving us. If it's chump change, we might refuse their request. But if it's a lot of money, then they're far more likely to get a refund. Cell phone customers who were just pouring money into our pockets were far more likely to get refunded for stupid $***, because the cost of the refund paled in comparison to what they were giving us. At the restaurant where I work, regulars who are known to be big spenders get treatment that others don't. Why? for the sole fact that they are giving us a $***load of money, and pissing them off makes that flow of money stop. It's all speculation, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that this customer was a dedicated Steam user who already spent a lot of money and whose purchasing habits indicated that he's more likely to keep spending money if he's happy. I don't know if that's the case or not. But when you get into the sales business, stupid-ass requests just come with the territory. You don't treat all customers the same, the simple fact is that the ones who spend more money are more valuable. And yes, that's one of the things that often gets factored in when companies have to determine whether or not to fulfill a customer's request.No it's not the same. Because I understand that my wants alone are not good alone worthy of being listening to just by virtue of being my own. Not buying a game is my own right (as it is my own decision). You're muddying the waters by talking about a purchase already made as if they are equal to potential future purchases (which I only brought up to illustrate a point).
We are talking about purchases already made here. If you make a purchase willingly then you accept the responsibility of that having made the purchase. I am not however going to turn around after buying a product (which works perfectly fine and does not damage my hardware) and demand a refund, even if I am not happy. You said I am not entitled to a fun game. I totally agree. And for that reason if a game isn't fun or even if it offends me I will not ask for a refund. I will not do that. Why? Because I know full well that these are not good, valid reasons for getting a refund for a perfectly functional product that I willingly bought of my volition...I accept the responsibility of my purchase in it's totality and don't shirk the responsibility onto any third party.
That doesn't mean I can't complain about the game design choices of the game I purchased however (I don't have a problem with people debating over the content of games at all)...it just means I am not going to push the responsibility of having made the purchase onto someone else based on some misdirected idea that I am beyond being offended.
And artists are not responsible for people's emotions, only for providing the stimulus to change them, in either case they are not responsible for people's purchases (which in this case someone is attempting to shirk responsibility of because of his emotions), and any emotion even if it was instilled by the artist would still not be a good enough reason to justify a refund (yes, that includes boredom because a game sucks).
The reason I bought the point on emotional landscapes up was to show how silly it is for people to push their own responsibility of purchase onto a third party because of their own emotions. Especially when those emotions are not necessarily of the making of the content creator (but even if we can say they are, it still would not be valid).
Companies not getting my money for future purchases because I exercise my right as a consumer is completely different from companies not getting my money because I purchased their game and then decided I wanted a refund for it...just because I 'felt' like it.
edit: Â I didn't argue that he should have researched the game better. Â He is allowed to make purchases without any research whatsoever...as long as he takes responsibility for it I don't see the problem.
edit2: Yeah, had a bit of clarity in my thought: Â When I said that artists are not responsible for people's emotions (in this case: offence) I am pretty sure I'm right here. Â More precisely what the artist is responsible for is 'insult'. Â What we have here is someone taking their problem (their offence, not the insult) and demanding a refund for it from a third-party. Â
Articuno76
blah blah blah,games are a business, yada yada yada...
Â
forget the dumb offended gamer. he got his refund. he's an IDIOT.
Â
games are boring without subjective values being questioned and being put to the sidelines. it's technically a kind of art form, to make someone step outside of themselves and experience something subjective... like a video game or movie.
Â
if you can't do that then step away from the screen. you complaining ruins the ART and FUN for everyone. this is so typical of modern America. dumb down everything to a business plan. forget making something unique interesting or exciting... just make everything work smoothly and proficiently as possible.
Â
PS: the Bioshock Infinite they had before launch was "Infinitely" better then the one we got. more torrid, more exciting, more realisitic, more rails to fight on, more of the bird, more story, more criminality, more revolutionary's to fight, less predictable fighting, less predictable plotting... a whole crap load of stuff. why was it removed? because, Irrational Games are a company out to make money... they need it to fund the next project and keep afloat. sadly too many stupid idiotic people play games, which they shouldn't. they are too stupid, and companies that cater to them, have their work suffer, by extention of trying to cater to these nitwits. it's pitiful; to know that we could have had a real successor to Bioshock and something that could have even topped it, but it was too "extreme" for most people. it's SICKENING. can't have a game that makes a point about the human condition AND have it be realisitic. now that's just too harsh. :roll: lets make everything we make for whiny babies.
Â
i wish a dev would just release a game without listening to their "fan-base"... just make the game you envision and do THAT game. you see people fighting on rail systems in cities in the sky... makes us fight on rail systems, having to jump to avoid freight and have us barge into Zeppelin's that get called into battle. make fighting in the sky unique with the rails and the powers... make it possible to fall off the city and die. make it fun, and new, not just... "oh get off the rail now, you're done, now stand and shoot at everything."... i know that's you beat the game, but it's not as fun as having all the chaos of having to jump around narrowly avoiding death as whooping Vox warriors come hurling down from the sky... it's not as fun seeing everyone laying around in position, dead, whilst they should be being pushed around... and being killed as a result of your actions. oh well, maybe the next Irrational Game will have that in spades. hopefully.
you don't turn down the Pope. just like you don't turn down money, or your audience. none of this has anything to do with "art", though. this has to do with politics and personal outlook. you NEED an audience. doesn't mean they are always right.
Â
[QUOTE="Justin_G"]
blah blah blah,games are a business, yada yada yada...
forget the dumb offended gamer. he got his refund. he's an IDIOT.
capaho
I suppose this issue comes to down to capitallist zealots railing against religious zealots.
dot dot dot, meets pretentious art-house concept zealot.*snub*
:D
[QUOTE="Articuno76"]Forgive me for not replying to this in-depth. I just got off work and I have to be back at work again very early tomorrow, so I'll give a more thorough reply later. But let me just reply to one little thing that stood out. You wrote, "Companies not getting my money for future purchases because I exercise my right as a consumer is completely different from companies not getting my money because I purchased their game and then decided I wanted a refund for it...just because I 'felt' like it." To that I say, what? Your "right as a consumer" is ALSO to complain about anything you have a problem with, and yes...to even go so far as to try to get a refund. The guy in the article acted 100% consistently with his "rights as a consumer". Also, from a customer relations standpoint, why do you think he got a refund? Probably because denying him a refund would dissuade him from making future purchases. It's still the same thing. In both cases, the leverage that consumers have against companies is to not make future purchases. The $60 he spent on the game is irrelevant, his entire baragining chip is that if he isn't satisfied, he won't make future purchases. Also, while I don't know how Valve determines when to issue a refund, I wouldn't doubt for a second that purchasing history plays a role. I worked at a cellphone company (that I won't name), I work at a restaurant (that I won't name), and that's how it (justifiably) worked at those places. If someone made a request for a refund, whether reasonable or not, part of the procedure is to determine how much money they are giving us. If it's chump change, we might refuse their request. But if it's a lot of money, then they're far more likely to get a refund. Cell phone customers who were just pouring money into our pockets were far more likely to get refunded for stupid $***, because the cost of the refund paled in comparison to what they were giving us. At the restaurant where I work, regulars who are known to be big spenders get treatment that others don't. Why? for the sole fact that they are giving us a $***load of money, and pissing them off makes that flow of money stop. It's all speculation, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that this customer was a dedicated Steam user who already spent a lot of money and whose purchasing habits indicated that he's more likely to keep spending money if he's happy. I don't know if that's the case or not. But when you get into the sales business, stupid-ass requests just come with the territory. You don't treat all customers the same, the simple fact is that the ones who spend more money are more valuable. And yes, that's one of the things that often gets factored in when companies have to determine whether or not to fulfill a customer's request. I'm not arguing about the business side of this (and in any case I don't feel their is a business problem here as like you said, it was handled well) The problem I have with this guy is he acted like a baby, consistency with consumer rights or not, and that he got away with it. I don't agree that going as far as to get a refund is part of your right as a consumer when the reasons for disappointment with a product are entirely your own. The reason your employers issued those refunds wasn't to do with consumer rights but simply good business practice.No it's not the same. Because I understand that my wants alone are not good alone worthy of being listening to just by virtue of being my own. Not buying a game is my own right (as it is my own decision). You're muddying the waters by talking about a purchase already made as if they are equal to potential future purchases (which I only brought up to illustrate a point).
We are talking about purchases already made here. If you make a purchase willingly then you accept the responsibility of that having made the purchase. I am not however going to turn around after buying a product (which works perfectly fine and does not damage my hardware) and demand a refund, even if I am not happy. You said I am not entitled to a fun game. I totally agree. And for that reason if a game isn't fun or even if it offends me I will not ask for a refund. I will not do that. Why? Because I know full well that these are not good, valid reasons for getting a refund for a perfectly functional product that I willingly bought of my volition...I accept the responsibility of my purchase in it's totality and don't shirk the responsibility onto any third party.
That doesn't mean I can't complain about the game design choices of the game I purchased however (I don't have a problem with people debating over the content of games at all)...it just means I am not going to push the responsibility of having made the purchase onto someone else based on some misdirected idea that I am beyond being offended.
And artists are not responsible for people's emotions, only for providing the stimulus to change them, in either case they are not responsible for people's purchases (which in this case someone is attempting to shirk responsibility of because of his emotions), and any emotion even if it was instilled by the artist would still not be a good enough reason to justify a refund (yes, that includes boredom because a game sucks).
The reason I bought the point on emotional landscapes up was to show how silly it is for people to push their own responsibility of purchase onto a third party because of their own emotions. Especially when those emotions are not necessarily of the making of the content creator (but even if we can say they are, it still would not be valid).
Companies not getting my money for future purchases because I exercise my right as a consumer is completely different from companies not getting my money because I purchased their game and then decided I wanted a refund for it...just because I 'felt' like it.
edit: Â I didn't argue that he should have researched the game better. Â He is allowed to make purchases without any research whatsoever...as long as he takes responsibility for it I don't see the problem.
edit2: Yeah, had a bit of clarity in my thought: Â When I said that artists are not responsible for people's emotions (in this case: offence) I am pretty sure I'm right here. Â More precisely what the artist is responsible for is 'insult'. Â What we have here is someone taking their problem (their offence, not the insult) and demanding a refund for it from a third-party. Â
MrGeezer
[QUOTE="Articuno76"]
No it's not the same. Because...someone taking their problem (their offence, not the insult) and demanding a refund for it from a third-party. Â
capaho
The party you bought the product from isn't a third party. Â There's nothing unreasonable about a consumer demanding a refund for a product they are dissatisfied with from the party they bought it from, it happens all the time. Â If you buy something from Walmart that fails to meet your expectations, do you return it to Walmart or to the manufacturer? Â Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that once a purchase is made the consumer has irrevocable responsibility for that purchase decision thus a refund is never justified under any circumstances. Â That's about as unreasonable a proposition as I've ever heard.
Okay two points. i. Third-party may not be the right word, but Steam/Wallmart in these examples are not the party responsible for the content itself which is why complaining to them about the content of a videogame is misdirected. ii. How the product fails to meet expectations is important. If it is because of false advertising or a fault, neither of which is under the control of the consumer then they are entitled to a refund because the basis that the purchase was made upon was not sound. So what I'm suggesting, far from the customer having to live with their purchase no matter what, is that they should have to live with their purchase provided there is no fault with the product or foul play/coercion involved in selling it. Now you could make the point that we should have classification for game ratings that include religious content in addition to the ones that already highlight language, violence and sexual content, but that is a different topic.i. That is custom when the issue is with product fault, price correction or incorrect advertising etc. It isn't customary (and not well looked upon) to get a refund for a perfectly functional product (and this is where we will have to agree to disagree as it depends on very much on your own experiences, local business practices and upbringing). The problem doesn't lie with which party he asked the refund for, but that he pushed his responsibility for the purchase onto someone else (in this case it is made even more dubious because the party he is taking complaint with is not the one his issue stems from). ii. I've made many purchases I've regretted...oh so very many...but I wouldn't think of getting a refund for them. Empathy for buying into an epic disappointment? Sure, but a refund for my own foolhardy purchase? That's a little too much to swallow. I can get this guy put down a lot of money to have a good time and felt burnt by the experience, but that's part of life. It sucks, but it is what it is.Articuno76
i. Â Complaints about the content of entertainment products are quite common.
ii. Â Deciding whether or not to keep a product that you're not satisfied with is a decision that is entirely yours to make. Â When you demand that others follow your decisions rather than theirs, you become a zealot. Â As for me, I return products that fail to meet my expectations.
i. Â Complaints about the content of entertainment products are quite common.
ii. Â Deciding whether or not to keep a product that you're not satisfied with is a decision that is entirely yours to make. Â When you demand that others follow your decisions rather than theirs, you become a zealot. Â As for me, I return products that fail to meet my expectations.
capaho
1. Complaints are, but you then go on to say that just because those complaints occur they all of a sudden justify a refund (your movie example), and that this somehow makes it right.
2. This applies to everyone. Â The person that says the refund request is not a valid one, the one that claims the opposite (you), and the company that makes the decision. Â Quite hypocritical to label one a zealot and not the others, no?
1. Complaints are, but you then go on to say that just because those complaints occur they all of a sudden justify a refund (your movie example), and that this somehow makes it right.
2. This applies to everyone. Â The person that says the refund request is not a valid one, the one that claims the opposite (you), and the company that makes the decision. Â Quite hypocritical to label one a zealot and not the others, no?
MirkoS77
1. Â I never said a complaint was justified merely becuase it occurred. Â I don't know how you got that from what I've said. Â It's up to the recipient of the complaint to make that determination. Â In this case, the resolution of the complaint was arrived at between the customer and Steam. Â Was that an unreasonable outcome merely because you say so?
3. Â To be clear, I wasn't applying the zealot label to any specific person. Â It was a general statement, the accuracy of which should be obvious. Â I'm merely advocating a bit of tolerance and understanding in a situation like this. Â What real impact does it have on any of us here what the nature of the complaint was or how it was resolved?
1. Â I never said a complaint was justified merely becuase it occurred. Â I don't know how you got that from what I've said. Â It's up to the recipient of the complaint to make that determination. Â In this case, the resolution of the complaint was arrived at between the customer and Steam. Â Was that an unreasonable outcome merely because you say so?
3. Â To be clear, I wasn't applying the zealot label to any specific person. Â It was a general statement, the accuracy of which should be obvious. Â I'm merely advocating a bit of tolerance and understanding in a situation like this. Â What real impact does it have on any of us here what the nature of the complaint was or how it was resolved?
capaho
1. You did imply through your "movie theatres give refunds all the time" that a refund was warranted because they are dissatisfied, and that it somehow makes it valid grounds for recompense. Â Truth is, you gave such an example in support of your position, one that you've articulated over and again that it's not wrong for someone to receive a refund for something they don't like. Â Was getting a refund reasonable because you say so? Â I think it's far more reasonable a position to say that a refund based upon personal objections is wrong than to attempt to claim that it's right simply because someone is unhappy with their purchase, and not because of any fault of the product itself. Â And I'm not talking from a customer service perspective either.
2. Throughout this thread people have been throwing around the word "hypocrisy", mostly at those who oppose this refund, when they refuse to see that they are being just as hypocritical themselves in labeling us as such things as zealots and arrogant. Â When you say someone is being a zealot when arguing any position, what is to be expected? Â Throwing around labels when defending an opinion is not a general statement nor should be viewed as such. Â Sure, it is easy to hide behind "speaking generally" when called out on it. Â This is why I took issue. Â
And the impact this has on anyone is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Â This is about whether the refund was justified, not how it affects me or anyone else. Â Everyone keeps turning this into a very personal issue, attaking the person holding the opinion instead of the opinion itself.
1. You did imply through your "movie theatres give refunds all the time" that a refund was warranted because they are dissatisfied, and that it somehow makes it valid grounds for recompense. Â Truth is, you gave such an example in support of your position, one that you've articulated over and again that it's not wrong for someone to receive a refund for something they don't like. Â Was getting a refund reasonable because you say so? Â I think it's far more reasonable a position to say that a refund based upon personal objections is wrong than to attempt to claim that it's right simply because someone is unhappy with their purchase, and not because of any fault of the product itself. Â And I'm not talking from a customer service perspective either.
2. Throughout this thread people have been throwing around the word "hypocrisy", mostly at those who oppose this refund, when they refuse to see that they are being just as hypocritical themselves in labeling us as such things as zealots and arrogant. Â When you say someone is being a zealot when arguing any position, what is to be expected? Â Throwing around labels when defending an opinion is not a general statement nor should be viewed as such. Â Sure, it is easy to hide behind "speaking generally" when called out on it. Â This is why I took issue. Â
And the impact this has on anyone is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Â This is about whether the refund was justified, not how it affects me or anyone else. Â Everyone keeps turning this into a very personal issue, attaking the person holding the opinion instead of the opinion itself.
MirkoS77
1. Â The movie theater example was specifically in reference to people walking out of a movie early and demanding a refund because of objectionable content. Â The same principle applies here. Â I believe the refund was justified in this case considering that the gamer was offended because he felt his religion was being mocked or trivialized. Â I would argue that the religiosity that is part of the game's theme entails the risk of offending Christians, so from that standpoint it is a flaw in the game. Â You seem to take the position that a person's personal feelings should never be considered in evaluating the legitimacy of a refund request. Â I couldn't disagree more.
2. Â I have not accused anyone of hypocrisy in any of my comments on this matter, so I don't really follow your line of reasoning in referring to the comments of others in your reply to me. Â I have used the word zealot several times, but being a zealot is not the same thing as being a hypocrite. Â Arguing against the basis for this refund with zeal wouldn't make you a hypocrite. Â Only your own behavior regarding your own refund demands in relation to what you preach to others would determine that.
The refund was Steam's call to make and it was obviously justified, otherwise it wouldn't have been given. Â Steam obviously didn't want to leave the customer feeling offended after he discovered he couldn't play the game with a clear conscience because of his religious convictions. Â That was both a smart business decision and a compassionate one on Steam's part.
 I believe the refund was justified in this case considering that the gamer was offended because he felt his religion was being mocked or trivialized.  I would argue that the religiosity that is part of the game's theme entails the risk of offending Christians, so from that standpoint it is a flaw in the game.  capahoI've gotta take issue with this. It's only a flaw in the game if the INTENT was to not offend anyone. People have gotten offended at Marilyn Manson and Andres Serrano and Joel-Peter Witkin, but that alone doesn't indicate that their work was FLAWED. Now...if Christians were the target audience, and the point was for Christians to like it, and it turned out that a significant number of Christians were offended, then you could say that it was flawed. In that case, there would be a big disconnect between what it's supposed to do and what it does. But a lot of art is supposed to be offensive to someone. Some art is supposed to make its target audience comfortable, other art exists for the primary purpose of making the target audience uncomfortable as $***. And no matter what you do, there's probably going to be SOMEONE who takes offense at it. That still doesn't mean that the guy wasn't justified in getting a refund. Like you said, that's between him and Valve, and it really isn't anyone else's business. But just because he was justified in receiving a refund doesn't mean that there's anything FLAWED about the product. This game isn't specifically targeted towards Christians, it doesn't exist for the purpose of making Christians comfortable, and I don't exactly see Christians coming out of the woodwork in order to blast this game for its baptism scene. One Christian getting offended by the game doesn't mean that the game is flawed.
You seem to take the position that a person's personal feelings should never be considered in evaluating the legitimacy of a refund request. Â I couldn't disagree more.capaho
Nor could I.Â
If a product works as intended with no defects, personal feelings should not even be a consideration for a refund. Â Ever. Â If a company reimburses someone for whatever reason they wish, fine. Â That is their prerogative and right. Â But it's my right to find it not a valid reason. Â I don't believe the world owes me any favors because I disagree with something in it, and never will. Â
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
i'm happy he got the refund. anyone that gets ripped off after buying a product that is substandard deserves a refund.A religious, Christian gamer demanded and received a full refund from Valve for forced Baptism in Bioshock Infinite. He has no problem digitally murdering pixelized NPC's but a fake Baptism was apparently more than he could bear. When does the self entitlement stop and companies start standing their ground?
HipHopBeats
I've gotta take issue with this. It's only a flaw in the game if the INTENT was to not offend anyone. People have gotten offended at Marilyn Manson and Andres Serrano and Joel-Peter Witkin, but that alone doesn't indicate that their work was FLAWED. Now...if Christians were the target audience, and the point was for Christians to like it, and it turned out that a significant number of Christians were offended, then you could say that it was flawed. In that case, there would be a big disconnect between what it's supposed to do and what it does. But a lot of art is supposed to be offensive to someone. Some art is supposed to make its target audience comfortable, other art exists for the primary purpose of making the target audience uncomfortable as $***. And no matter what you do, there's probably going to be SOMEONE who takes offense at it. That still doesn't mean that the guy wasn't justified in getting a refund. Like you said, that's between him and Valve, and it really isn't anyone else's business. But just because he was justified in receiving a refund doesn't mean that there's anything FLAWED about the product. This game isn't specifically targeted towards Christians, it doesn't exist for the purpose of making Christians comfortable, and I don't exactly see Christians coming out of the woodwork in order to blast this game for its baptism scene. One Christian getting offended by the game doesn't mean that the game is flawed. MrGeezer
I didn't mean flawed in the same sense as buggy or a defective disc. Â Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the design concept was flawed. Â If game makers want to venture into matters of religion or other controversial issues, as they frequently do, the responsibility for offending gamers in the groups that they are exploiting for the sake of the game is on them. Â I suppose to those who are not religious this is a trivial matter, but for those of us who are religious, our beliefs are central to our llives. Â In that regard, I can understand why the gamer might have been offended and I think that Steam did the right thing by refunding his money. Â I prefer to live in a society where civility and compassion prevail over greed and insensitivity. Â I hope we get there someday.
There is also this way of looking at it. He took his own responsibility for purchase and abandoned it at the point of asking for a refund. But I'm not so sure I can go as far as to say he was feeling entitled to a refund he didn't deserve (I can't see any valid reason for the refund so I won't go as far to say he was entitled to it). For all we know he could have been refused the refund and thought 'well, I was pushing my luck to begin with' (or he could have gone on a crusade over it) and that would have been the end of it.
I understand that people get refunds for frivolous consumption in other media, and I don't agree with it as it isn't a fair practice; not getting a refund for a product that isn't defective is also extremely common. Maybe this is a US-centric thing but it would be unlikely to fly here. At best you'd get a refund from an exasperated store clerk who just wants to get rid of you but they would be very unlikely to see it from your angle. Feelings can be taken into account sure (for gauging how upset the customer is) but they shouldn't be a justification for refunds. And in most cases they are not treated as legitimate reasons (I don't consider Valve offering up the refund an act of legitimisation) either.
As Mirko has pointed out, this is where me and capaho will have to agree to disagree. Maybe you live in an area where getting refunds for these things is not only the norm, but a fair practice open to everyone, and one that isn't looked down on at all. I don't.
wtf
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]I've gotta take issue with this. It's only a flaw in the game if the INTENT was to not offend anyone. People have gotten offended at Marilyn Manson and Andres Serrano and Joel-Peter Witkin, but that alone doesn't indicate that their work was FLAWED. Now...if Christians were the target audience, and the point was for Christians to like it, and it turned out that a significant number of Christians were offended, then you could say that it was flawed. In that case, there would be a big disconnect between what it's supposed to do and what it does. But a lot of art is supposed to be offensive to someone. Some art is supposed to make its target audience comfortable, other art exists for the primary purpose of making the target audience uncomfortable as $***. And no matter what you do, there's probably going to be SOMEONE who takes offense at it. That still doesn't mean that the guy wasn't justified in getting a refund. Like you said, that's between him and Valve, and it really isn't anyone else's business. But just because he was justified in receiving a refund doesn't mean that there's anything FLAWED about the product. This game isn't specifically targeted towards Christians, it doesn't exist for the purpose of making Christians comfortable, and I don't exactly see Christians coming out of the woodwork in order to blast this game for its baptism scene. One Christian getting offended by the game doesn't mean that the game is flawed. capaho
I didn't mean flawed in the same sense as buggy or a defective disc. Â Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the design concept was flawed. Â If game makers want to venture into matters of religion or other controversial issues, as they frequently do, the responsibility for offending gamers in the groups that they are exploiting for the sake of the game is on them. Â I suppose to those who are not religious this is a trivial matter, but for those of us who are religious, our beliefs are central to our llives. Â In that regard, I can understand why the gamer might have been offended and I think that Steam did the right thing by refunding his money. Â I prefer to live in a society where civility and compassion prevail over greed and insensitivity. Â I hope we get there someday.
You know as member of a religious (islamic) family I can see one possible reason I would consider legitimate grounds for a refund. That would be when buying a product forces you to take actions in violation with your beliefs. Buying a burger that in fact has traces of pork (not advertised) for instance and unknowingly eating it would be an action taken by someone that violates their beliefs (and they were forced to take that action because of a lack of information). This is a real world action the consumer would not have taken if properly informed. Here however we are talking about the actions of a virtual avatar effecting other virtual characters. This person may well have been offended, but they weren't duped into acting against their beliefs as in reality no action occurred.It's just an excuse to get refund or a clever way to play the game for free. He's a genius, not an idiot like people have said.ZenswordI've thought of this as well.  Maybe the dude wasn't even religious, maybe he just really disliked the game and was smart enough to know that he could cry religious differences to hold a strong case towards asking for a refund.  This is more than likely more what pisses me off about this.....it's not so much about refunds or customer service, it's more about religion and its place in the world.  It is viewed as hands off and untouchable, privy to special treatment and privileges that other aspects that are part of public opinion or scrutiny are not afforded because it's so personal and integral to the core of one's identity.
Like politics are not and should be viewed any less? Â Or philosophy? Â Or any other type of belief? Â The religious do not hold a monopoly on being offended more than any other group of people who hold varying beliefs that form who they are and what they think or how they view the world, and should be treated no different. Â If they are so offended by the world's opinion of their beliefs, then they keep it to themselves. Â Once it becomes public, it is game for public discourse, approval, ridicule, and everything that comes along with it. Â One thing I agree with capeho on is that it is nice to have compassion and understanding (and this is something that we should strive for, within reason), but this should be expected to always be the exception and not the rule. Â And if it happens to one group, it should apply to all. Â Other than that, the world doesn't owe anybody anything.
Perhaps religion didn't even factor into this refund, maybe it's purely a customer service issue, who knows. Â If that's the case, I still believe it to be a wrong decision, but not nearly as bad as if religion was the reason it was given.
You know as member of a religious (islamic) family I can see one possible reason I would consider legitimate grounds for a refund. That would be when buying a product forces you to take actions in violation with your beliefs. Buying a burger that in fact has traces of pork (not advertised) for instance and unknowingly eating it would be an action taken by someone that violates their beliefs (and they were forced to take that action because of a lack of information). This is a real world action the consumer would not have taken if properly informed. Here however we are talking about the actions of a virtual avatar effecting other virtual characters. This person may well have been offended, but they weren't duped into acting against their beliefs as in reality no action occurred.
Articuno76
What if the avatar or virtual character was intended to represent an image of Muhammad?
I've thought of this as well.  Maybe the dude wasn't even religious, maybe he just really disliked the game and was smart enough to know that he could cry religious differences to hold a strong case towards asking for a refund.  This is more than likely more what pisses me off about this.....it's not so much about refunds or customer service, it's more about religion and its place in the world.  It is viewed as hands off and untouchable, privy to special treatment and privileges that other aspects that are part of public opinion or scrutiny are not afforded because it's so personal and integral to the core of one's identity.
Like politics are not and should be viewed any less? Â Or philosophy? Â Or any other type of belief? Â The religious do not hold a monopoly on being offended more than any other group of people who hold varying beliefs that form who they are and what they think or how they view the world, and should be treated no different. Â If they are so offended by the world's opinion of their beliefs, then they keep it to themselves. Â Once it becomes public, it is game for public discourse, approval, ridicule, and everything that comes along with it. Â One thing I agree with capeho on is that it is nice to have compassion and understanding (and this is something that we should strive for, within reason), but this should be expected to always be the exception and not the rule. Â And if it happens to one group, it should apply to all. Â Other than that, the world doesn't owe anybody anything.
Perhaps religion didn't even factor into this refund, maybe it's purely a customer service issue, who knows. Â If that's the case, I still believe it to be a wrong decision, but not nearly as bad as if religion was the reason it was given.
MirkoS77
In my view, this is merely a matter of respect for the individual, it has nothing to do with favoring religious beliefs over other philosophies or ideologies.  I would be of the same opinion regarding someone who demanded a refund for a game that disturbed them because of excessive violence or sexual innuendo or racial or ethnic slurs or stereotypes.  Whether or not the individual in this case was sincere is a matter that is beyond the ability of anyone in this discussion to know with certainty.  I don't think that changes the importance of considering the affect certain game content may have on individual gamers. Â
I don't agree with the notion that we should just have to accept whatever the game developers decide to put in a game as they do have a habit of pushing the boundaries. Â There's nothing wrong with pushing back. Â We are not here to serve their needs, we are their customers. Â I can only speak for myself when I say that I prefer games that I can enjoy, and I have never returned a game that I've bought, but I've spent far too much money on bad games that looked great in the pre-release hype. Â Game developers need to be held responsible for their content and perhaps it's time that all of us started returning bad games. Â Maybe that will motivate game developers to raise the level of quality.
It's just an excuse to get refund or a clever way to play the game for free. He's a genius, not an idiot like people have said.ZenswordI'd bet dollars to donuts Valve checked his playtime and achievements before issuing a refund. I know CSRs can be dense, but there's no way they were dense enough to issue a refund to someone who played a substantial portion of the game.
[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]This is more than likely more what pisses me off about this.....it's not so much about refunds or customer service, it's more about religion and its place in the world.  It is viewed as hands off and untouchable, privy to special treatment and privileges that other aspects that are part of public opinion or scrutiny are not afforded because it's so personaland integral to the core of one's identity.See, here's the thing: I've never gotten the impression that religion is off limits. Bioshock Infinite deals with religion in a possibly offensive way, and from what I hear it's been very successful. I don't see religion being "off limits" hurting the game's sales or the game's critical reception. Heavily mainstream stuff such as South Park and The Simpsons have taken shots at religion a LOT. I don't see people picketing in the streets, I usually don't see people forming protests or sending death threats. How is religion off limits here? The game is still the same, it didn't get changed. It's still getting sold, I don't exactly see retailers pulling it from shelves because the religious community will not tolerate it. The ONLY thing that got happened is that one single dude got his $60 back. People take shots at religion all the damn time, taking shots at religion is ABSOLUTELY NOT off limits. One guy getting his money refunded doesn't change that. Hell...the "War on Christmas" was a made-up bull$*** outrage as well, and at least there we could see more than one freaking incident of someone changing "Christmas" to "Holidays" out of political correctness. Conservative blowhards would then go on TV and radio espousing a false persecution issue, based on nothing but bull$***. Same thing here. People take shots at religion all the damn time, we're just going to selectively focus on one instance of someone getting offended over religious content and then receiving a refund, and then act as if there's some major push to abolish religious criticism? I don't buy it.I'm not talking about the game here.Like politics are not and should be viewed any less?  Or philosophy?  Or any other type of belief?  The religious do not hold a monopoly on being offended more than any other group of people who hold varying beliefs that form who they are and what they think or how they view the world, and should be treated no different. MrGeezer
What do you think would garner greater criticism: mocking and making fun of Obama and his policies and beliefs, or the Pope? Â I can assure you the Pope would win, and by a large margin. Â Hell, just look at the cover and cartoons in "The Week". Â It's a political slaughterhouse. Â Have you forgotten the incident a while back that involved the cartoon drawing of Muhammad that did cause enormous riots, hundreds of deaths, not to mention death threats and a heavy reward upon the head of the cartoonist? Â Hell, a virtual Jihad was pretty much declared against this Danish paper. Â The entire Muslim world was in an uproar for a long period of time, over a cartoon.
A CARTOON.
Now if you'd like to show me something similar, so minimalist, that has created such a ridiculous outpouring of outrage about something other than religion, then I'm all ears. Â Sure, politics have erupted into violence and deaths, this I don't deny, but it's usually when implemented policies are having a very detrimental and tangible affect on people's lives. Â Not some damn cartoon they read in the Sunday funny papers that may, Heaven forbid, even slightly question or disapprove of their personal convictions. Â I'm sorry, but people need to learn to be secure in their beliefs, grow a thicker skin, and learn that the world is not going to be merciful as to what they think or believe. Â Respect and tolerance is nice and idealistic and all, but in reality the world's always going to be unmerciful as f*ck. Â People need to learn this and live with it.
Religion is not off-limits, I agree with you there, it's that it's oftentimes treated as such and there seems to be a very real double standard in what it does and will or will not tolerate compared to anything else. Â Nothing in the world creates such uproar as religion when it comes to being offended, even politics, which in my view are far more important and relevant an issue to the well-being of my (and many others) day to day lives, though I'm an atheist so that's just me and I'm obviously not speaking for all.Â
But 200+ dying from a cartoon? Â That's just a bit absurd, and it's something I've never seen, nor do I think WILL be seen again, without religion.
This is more than likely more what pisses me off about this.....it's not so much about refunds or customer service, it's more about religion and its place in the world.  It is viewed as hands off and untouchable, privy to special treatment and privileges that other aspects that are part of public opinion or scrutiny are not afforded because it's so personal and integral to the core of one's identity.See, here's the thing: I've never gotten the impression that religion is off limits. Bioshock Infinite deals with religion in a possibly offensive way, and from what I hear it's been very successful. I don't see religion being "off limits" hurting the game's sales or the game's critical reception. Heavily mainstream stuff such as South Park and The Simpsons have taken shots at religion a LOT. I don't see people picketing in the streets, I usually don't see people forming protests or sending death threats. How is religion off limits here? The game is still the same, it didn't get changed. It's still getting sold, I don't exactly see retailers pulling it from shelves because the religious community will not tolerate it. The ONLY thing that got happened is that one single dude got his $60 back. People take shots at religion all the damn time, taking shots at religion is ABSOLUTELY NOT off limits. One guy getting his money refunded doesn't change that. Hell...the "War on Christmas" was a made-up bull$*** outrage as well, and at least there we could see more than one freaking incident of someone changing "Christmas" to "Holidays" out of political correctness. Conservative blowhards would then go on TV and radio espousing a false persecution issue, based on nothing but bull$***. Same thing here. People take shots at religion all the damn time, we're just going to selectively focus on one instance of someone getting offended over religious content and then receiving a refund, and then act as if there's some major push to abolish religious criticism? I don't buy it.Like politics are not and should be viewed any less?  Or philosophy?  Or any other type of belief?  The religious do not hold a monopoly on being offended more than any other group of people who hold varying beliefs that form who they are and what they think or how they view the world, and should be treated no different. MirkoS77
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment