Blogger Denied Refund for Game EA Won't Let Him Play

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Except we're talking about a 9 year old playing Battlefield 1943, which was rated T, and Halo, which has less objectionable content than many PG rated movies despite the M rating. We aren't subjecting a five year old to God of War here.

Uhhh, he also said he liked to play crackdown with the kid. Who knows what else he does with the kid?

I'm not sure what kind of content Crackdown contains, having never played it, but I see very few games these days that would get higher than a PG-13 rating as a movie -- and I think a parent would know if their kid could handle PG-13. I can count on one hand the games I've played in the last few years that truly deserved an M, and the majority of my library has been made up of M rated games since about 2004 or 2005.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

The whole ratings system is simply a guideline, and a window into the content of the game/movie to make it easier to choose whether to buy it or not. It makes it easier for parents to moderate what their child plays. What a person views is to their discretion, and what a parent allows their child to view is up to their discretion. It is not up to the government, nor any corporation to moderate what a person views or doesn't view. And just because the internet & technology now allows for this, doesn't mean it gives them the right to restrict people on what they can play. It's up to the parents. As for the refund, well, if you're not going to let someone play the game they bought, they might as well not have bought the game. Give them back the money, EA, stop ripping people off just because you can

 

[jackknife402]

I'm not sure what kind of content Crackdown contains, having never played it, but I see very few games these days that would get higher than a PG-13 rating as a movie -- and I think a parent would know if their kid could handle PG-13. I can count on one hand the games I've played in the last few years that truly deserved an M, and the majority of my library has been made up of M rated games since about 2004 or 2005.

It's not what the parent thinks their kids can "Handle" it's what's actually acceptable for the human brain to process depending the stage of development in their life. Also I too have since about 2004 had mostly M rated games, and even though I was fifteen at the time, I know it screwed me up. I don't feel emotion at the right moments anymore, hell I feel the wrong emotion half the time. I'm just going by what I have analyzed about my childhood and what I was subjected to, and the kids of my siblings and cousins and how they behave.

Also to those whom say it's EA that's the bad guy, read through the terms of use again, and again, and again. You'll find that no one owns games but the company whom makes them, they have the right to remove access to the content at anytime, for any reason. They are also able to gain access to specs and personal information to further marketing goals. No, they never hide things from us, we just don't choose to read through the documents we accept.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I'm not sure what kind of content Crackdown contains, having never played it, but I see very few games these days that would get higher than a PG-13 rating as a movie -- and I think a parent would know if their kid could handle PG-13. I can count on one hand the games I've played in the last few years that truly deserved an M, and the majority of my library has been made up of M rated games since about 2004 or 2005.

It's not what the parent thinks their kids can "Handle" it's what's actually acceptable for the human brain to process depending the stage of development in their life. Also I too have since about 2004 had mostly M rated games, and even though I was fifteen at the time, I know it screwed me up. I don't feel emotion at the right moments anymore, hell I feel the wrong emotion half the time. I'm just going by what I have analyzed about my childhood and what I was subjected to, and the kids of my siblings and cousins and how they behave.

Also to those whom say it's EA that's the bad guy, read through the terms of use again, and again, and again. You'll find that no one owns games but the company whom makes them, they have the right to remove access to the content at anytime, for any reason. They are also able to gain access to specs and personal information to further marketing goals. No, they never hide things from us, we just don't choose to read through the documents we accept.

The human brain reaches those stages at different points for different individuals, so it's not as clear cut as you think. If you don't believe me, grab any psychology textbook and look at the criticism section after it discusses Piaget. I was 14 in 2004, and I can honestly say the M rated games didn't screw me up in the slightest. Heck, I was playing Rise of the Triad at a very young age, and I grew up just fine. If you've never heard of it, it was a pre-ESRB FPS that makes most modern M-rated games look like Mario by comparison.

As for the second part, do you see nothing wrong with EA claiming that the product you paid for belongs to them? They're the bad guys simply for putting that stuff in the EULA to begin with, to say nothing of the way they're enforcing it. Also, if reading the EULA before purchasing the game requires the purchaser to seek it out, EA doesn't have a leg to stand on, because it wasn't part of the initial contract of sale.

 

[Ellen of Kitten]

Another denial of goods from EA... Sigh. I'm losing faith in them again. (For the record, I never really had any problem with EA, and never took notice of their business until Mirrors Edge and... I think Dead Space came out. It's been a steady decline ever since.) There's an article kicking around of EA holding off switches for peoples accounts to games they purchased- even single player games like Dragon Age 2. This is the second case I've heard about today, which makes me wonder how many others are being denied on account of some internal decision in EA's Moral Code department.

 

[MrJoyless]

I can see EA having opt-in parent controls.

I can even see EA having opt-OUT parent controls.

But making your own laws and overruling parental authority is bullshit.

making your own rules??? the parent is the one who set their child's account to child...thus limiting the games he could play, its that simple

how is this anyones fault but the fathers???

seriously EA even offered a 20$ (which is MORE than the guy paid for his game) voucher thats better than what Xbox offered...

again how is EA a bad guy in this...its like giving your 8 year old kid a ticket to a Rated R movie and not expecting the movie theater workers to say something, only in this version you also told the movie theater to NEVER EVER under NO circumstances let your kid see Rated R movies...

can you guys think of the fallout for EA if they made games that let kids bypass the age limiting software on whatever platform is being used...

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I can see EA having opt-in parent controls.

I can even see EA having opt-OUT parent controls.

But making your own laws and overruling parental authority is bullshit.

making your own rules??? the parent is the one who set their child's account to child...thus limiting the games he could play, its that simple

how is this anyones fault but the fathers???

seriously EA even offered a 20$ (which is MORE than the guy paid for his game) voucher thats better than what Xbox offered...

again how is EA a bad guy in this...its like giving your 8 year old kid a ticket to a Rated R movie and not expecting the movie theater workers to say something, only in this version you also told the movie theater to NEVER EVER under NO circumstances let your kid see Rated R movies...

can you guys think of the fallout for EA if they made games that let kids bypass the age limiting software on whatever platform is being used...

Actually, it's like buying your kid a ticket to an R-rated movie, being told that it's okay as long as you're the one who buys it and you're with the kid -- you know, the way it works in real life -- and then being told out of the blue afer purchasing it under the earler conditions that your kid can't go in with you, but you can get a refund worth a ticket and a half that is only usable on other R-rated movies, meaning you're still out the money if you want to see something with your kid.

Edit: As for the second part, sure, there would be a minor fallout if they made it so kids could bypass the system without parental permission, but only minor since the kids would still have to get their parents' credit card information, meaning it would still be the parents' fault, not EA's. However, nobody here is suggesting they do that. What's being suggested is a set of parental controls that actually give parents control, instead of a simple child account that is locked to any games over the age limit, regardless of what the parent thinks of individual games.

 

[Zenode]

So.....they locked someone out because they are underage? Isn't that what ratings are for, not letting people under those ages play? I agree with EA in that respect but I disagree in that they should at least have given him a refund, but the EA store $20 credit isnt bad considering that there is it cost him $15 what if something that he likes comes along in the future?

 

[RowdyRodimus]

And yet, you can get a refund under the right circumstances. If "NO REFUNDS" was strictly enforced, they'd have a massive suit on their hands.

Do you have evidence to suggest they have offered refunds in the past?

Yup. Got one myself because of problems with a game/license. You can probably find other people here who have done the same.

I mean, honestly, do you seriously think "absolutely no refunds ever!" would hold up in court?

Did you get one because of Double Dragon, also? I called them up after they took it down from XBLA and explained that I had to remove it because of space and tried to get it back and it was gone. They credited my acct. with 800 MSP and a month of live for it, even though it was just 400 pts.

Everyone always makes MS out to be the Devil, when 99.9% of the time if you call them and explain something, they will make it right and then some. Just people wanting to ***** or people that think a corporation making money that isn't called Valve or Apple are evil, I guess.

As for the kid and his dad, they have a parental feature on XBL, right? Where you can ok purchases and what games they play only it's set up with the parents info. Why didn't they do that instead of saying "Hurp Derp, my son is special so I think he should have his own acct. What do you mean he isn't old enough? Didn't you hear me say my son is special?"

 

[ScorpSt]

If they were to let the kid play, they would be breaking the law. Specifically the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) [http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm]. Essentially, because of this, you have to be over the age of 13 to sign up for just about any account service in the US. To be perfectly honset, I'm surprised the kid was allowed to have an Xbox Live Gold account.

 

[ekkaman]

Would not be a problem if this guy say had a job or maybe took his kid too I do not know a park.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If they were to let the kid play, they would be breaking the law. Specifically the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) [http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm]. Essentially, because of this, you have to be over the age of 13 to sign up for just about any account service in the US. To be perfectly honset, I'm surprised the kid was allowed to have an Xbox Live Gold account.

But even under that act, it was the parent who made the account, not the kid. The point of Children's accounts on Xbox Live is for the parents to set up an account that their kids can play on, but that the parents have complete control over; EA here took the control away from the parent, and that is not cool.

 

[luvd1]

I applauded his parenting. It is up to the parent to know and decide what their child is capable of handling. Not a company, government or self righteous, hypocritical busybodies. But saying that. It's his fault for not considering the company policy...... A school boy error :-D

 

[Raeil]

I'd just like to point out two quick things:

1) "You must be 13+ to register with EA Online" is the line in the contract that is the problem. Since this is a contract, the wording is highly important, and as far as a small claims court would be concerned this would be enough for EA to have to honor their contract with the person who accepted it. The man who registered for his child is 13+, and thus is completely following the contract, thus he has a claim.

2) Receiving $20 dollars back on a $15 dollar purchase may seem like a great refund, but if the currency it is given in is not compatible with the system it was originally purchased in, then the refund is not a refund. In other words, if the $20 EA Credit is unusable in XBL, then he still does not have a refund.

All that aside, EA/MS at least have the controls in place to prevent children from playing M games, which as much as it hurts in this particular case, is a great thing when it comes to having a defense against the "games hurt children" argument.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

What an awesomely responsible father, allowing a 9 year old to play a game meant for 15s and over. Kudos to EA for showing better parental skills.

 

[DJROC]

If he was stopped from registering an EA Online account due to the age link to his XBOX account then the content should not have been accessible for purchase through the account in the first place. If Battlefield 1943 had offline content, then they might argue that it was a valid purchase, but selling content that the consumer cannot use is deserving of a refund. In this case it probably should come from the XBOX marketplace as opposed to EA since they were the ones who made the sale to someone that couldn't use the product.

 

[stl520nlv]

It might be true that it says that he's not allowed to get a refund, but the issue here is that EA and Microsoft didn't make it clear that his kid wouldn't be allowed to play the game because he was too young until AFTER he bought the thing. That's the issue, and that's why he's mentioning this.

That's... actually not true at all; this is the quote from the Xbox live descriptive box [as taken from Xbox.com]:

Battlefield 1943 is a multiplayer-only game that lets you enjoy the thrills of Pacific WW2 battles! Pick your path - be it as a rifleman, a steel fisted tank commander, or ace fighter pilot dog fighting to protect the skies. Play as a lone wolf or with your friends, coordinating to turn the tide of battle. This game requires the Xbox 360 hard drive for storage. There are no refunds for this item. Multiplayer only. For more information, see www.xbox.com/live/accounts. REGISTRATION AND GOLD SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED. EA ONLINE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND FEATURE UPDATES ARE FOUND AT www.ea.com. YOU MUST BE 13+ TO REGISTER WITH EA ONLINE. EA MAY PROVIDE CERTAIN INCREMENTAL CONTENT AND/OR UPDATES FOR NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE, IF AND WHEN AVAILABLE. EA MAY RETIRE THIS GAME AFTER 30 DAYS NOTICE POSTED ON www.ea.com. There are no refunds for this item. For more information, see www.xbox.com/live/accounts

As you can see: "YOU MUST BE 13+ TO REGISTER WITH EA ONLINE."

and

"There are no refunds for this item."

Are clearly stated; whether they're stated clearly enough is another matter [though I also beleive there is an age rating on the game description page of Xbox Live] but it's all there. Perhaps if Microsoft read the accounts age and warned the buyer before purchase this could have been avoided, but it's partially his own fault.

I'm not familiar with XBox live games, so going from what I read to begin with I was completely on this man's side, but this point should have ended the argument simply because they covered their tracks. He should have read the fine print, plain and simple. He claims he can't get a refund? $20 for a $15 game is a good refund and if you're not going to play anything but one game, why waste money on a SECOND xbox? The only argument for him is that he IS the parent and it should be his decision. Overall, though, I can't sympathize with him.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

This is why you always lie about your age on the internet.

What an awesomely responsible father, allowing a 9 year old to play a game meant for 15s and over. Kudos to EA for showing better parental skills.

Kids are way smarter than you think. If his father believes that his son has a strong enough grip on reality to distinguish between real life and the game, that's his decision. The issue here is not the fathers decision, but the fact that MS sold a game to an account that wouldn't be able to play it.

 

[Saulkar]

How was he supposed to know he wouldn't be allowed to let his son play?

By reading ALL of the information on the page before agreeing to purchase the game. Very simple.

Yeah, remember when I said "Prove to me that psychic powers exist. That is the ONLY way you'll win this argument."? It appears I stand corrected. Though ip201 didn't win on his own, you won for him by explaining this to me. Doesn't really matter who won though, because I just lost.

Actually I wasn't aware of that tidbit. I read the entire article but I guess either they failed to mention it, or I didn't read it hard enough. Well, um, well done then!

Though I will say that FalloutJack has made an interesting new argument, approaching this from a completely different angle. Can't really comment on his legal theory myself, but I think it's at least valid.

Well there is still the point that he was able to purchase the game with his son's account (I am quite positive that it said this, if I am wrong than this argument is invalid (mostly)) in the first place despite an age limit being in place. Should it not have prevented the purchase in the first place? Something I have found rather interesting is that before I turned 18 I could not download the demos of many games on XBOX live due to my age but I could actually purchase the game over XBOX Live and play it without restriction!!! I do not know if you can still do this after 2 years but what do you think of that?