A Lot Of People Are Trying To Refund No Man's Sky

Image: Hello Games

There was once a time when you had to cross your fingers and pray if you wanted a refund on Steam. How times have changed.

So it's not much of a surprise that some gamers are pretty angry with the state of No Man's Sky. It's not everyone, of course, and it's not new to see a game's popularity rapidly drop after its first couple of weeks.

But what you don't often see is Steam put out an advisory regarding refund policies — directly above the point where you can buy the game:

Image: Kotaku

More closely:

Image: Kotaku

The notice follows multiple threads over the weekend about gamers getting refunds on Steam after they had played more than 2 hours. This thread on the No Man's Sky sub-reddit has grown to more than 3900 comments in the last 24 hours; another on NeoGAF has ballooned to more than 2600 at the time of writing.

The refunding policy on Good Old Games and Humble Bundle has always been more generous than Steam, of course. But it wasn't a surprise to see people getting refunds, when you look at the argument users were suggested to try. Here's one example:

The notice above the purchase point, however, indicates that Steam's tolerance for refunds appears to have run dry. The standard policy lets users refund games provided they are within two weeks of purchase and have been played for less than 2 hours.

You do have to ask though: if Steam are prepared to be lenient with No Man's Sky, what else will they refund when pressed?


Comments

    "The refunding policy on Good Old Games" I thought theirs was only if the game did not work. No change of mind at all? And even if it did not work they would help you try and get it working, so arguably harder to get a refund through GoG than Steams paltry 2 hour playtime refund.

      Might be in reference to the refund period: Steam - 14 days; GOG - 30 days.

    Going by Australian Consumer Law (which Steam have to comply with as they sell to Australians) you can get a refund if a product isn't as advertised. So the advice from the comment shown in the article is pretty accurate in how to get a refund, at least according to our laws. If 2 hours of game time isn't enough for you to discover that advertised content isn't in the game then Steam's 2 hour limit is disregarded. Australian Consumer Law doesn't have any time limits.

    That said I have no idea what was advertised for No Man's Sky, I just know that people hyped the hell out of it. The videos I saw of the devs showing it off was just that it had billions of planets, you could name stuff and you could travel from space to planets seamlessly. All of those are in the game.

    Personally I tried No Man's Sky on a friend's computer and found it to be boring as all hell. Definitely not the game for me.

      Yep, this is what I did to get my refund. Cited a whole bunch of stuff from onemanslie.info and told them it met 3 of 4 'major problem' criterion under australian consumer law, linked to the precedent that steam have to comply with it even though they "don't do business here" and got my refund pretty quick.

        Could you link the precedent that you sent to Steam? I'm having trouble finding it on the consumerlaw.gov website :/

          https://www.origin.com/en-au/yourconsumerrights when it happened to EA

          https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/federal-court-finds-valve-made-misleading-representations-about-consumer-guarantees - Similar situation, but not about refunds iirc

      The hype was incredible. I get it, these sort so of games are, to put it one way, 'so hot right now', but I'm in the same boat as you, just seemed a little boring to me.

      I'm guessing many just bit on the hype and quickly learned it wasn't for them (or not quickly, if one Sony exec is to be believed)

      That said I have no idea what was advertised for No Man's Sky

      One of the biggest complaints was them being fairly vague on what exactly their multiplayer plans were though the entire thing, at points even stating that "While unlikely, if two players end up on the same planet, they could meet."

      This didn't end up happening. The game has no form of multiplayer at all.

        This is one of the annoying 100% or 0% arguments put out there. As you say, its one of the biggest complaints about the game. About a 'feature' that was repeatedly said was unlikely to happen. As in, never expect it. Ever. People should have been going into this game as if it was single player anyway, so for THAT to be the poster child of problems I find laughable.

        Its also never been explained WHY they couldnt see each other. How sure are people that it wasnt just a day 1 issue with server overload? Pretty sure it was said they should have been able to see each other, so was it some other problem that people dont want to know?

          Yes they repeatedly said it was unlikely, that the odds of it happening at all were mind bogglingly small......but that turned out to be bullshit too - two people ended up on the same planet at the same time on the first day after release

          Sorry mate, I think its your reasoning that is a bit laughable.

          "As you say, its one of the biggest complaints about the game. About a 'feature' that was repeatedly said was unlikely to happen."

          Not quite. They never said multiplayer wasn't going to happen, or was unlikely to happen. They said MEETING SOMEONE was unlikely to happen. For MEETING SOMEONE to be UNLIKELY, it first needs to be NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

          "People should have been going into this game as if it was single player anyway"

          Because they said the game was singleplayer? That's what this whole debate is about, no one EVER said it didn't have multiplayer, just that it was unlikely, not impossible.

          "so for THAT to be the poster child of problems I find laughable."
          You find developers lying to their fans by omission laughable? That's kinda sad...

          "Its also never been explained WHY they couldnt see each other."
          This kinda proves my point. Hello Games main problem is communication. The last time Hello Games posted on Twitter was the 18th of August. If it's a server issue, why don't they say? Likewise for the functionality, if the multiplayer functionality is not there, why don't they just come out and tell us? Hell, couldn't you have told us that at the start? The answer is simple. We've been lied to by omission and deliberately misled, and if you feel that is what we deserve as consumers I pity your outlook.

            Hey guys, let's keep it civil. Keep the discussion about the game rather than trashing each other, k?

            Well actually Sean Murray said in repeated interviews that you could grief your friends. When asked can i play with friends, he said yes. When Stephen Cobert asked him "can you ever see yourself" Sean replied " the only way to see yourself is if another player sees you."

            Come on. He flat out lied about features he heavily hinted would be in the game. You cannot name your space ships. He said there would be complex biomes and creatures could kill and eat eachother. The trailers showed content that never was in the game, like warring factions and space battles. It's just a few pirates that somehow only target you and there is the rare chance that they target TWO freighters and nothing really happens if you dont help them. There is no punishment for allying with one faction or the other. There is no galactic segregation. Its all random. NPCs are taking selfies all day long and doing nothing. For some reason i have to feed them carbon like i was feeding a goldfish just for them to spit out some tech or a new word. The giant snake that is shown on a desert planet doesnt exist. The rhino that is shown in one of the videos chasing off a herd of animals doesnt exist. The whole animal food chain is nonexistent.

            A good 60% of what is shown in the interviews and E3 videos and gameplay videos was either completely taken out, or was never truly there to begin with.

            Pretty sure that makes it a lie.

      The game was exactly as advertised. Nobody has the right to get a refund if they make up a fantasy about the product.

        Drawing a parallel to real estate sales (in NSW) the agent will put up misleading photos (rooms look bigger, gardens looks greener etc) but at the end of the day, the purchaser can only rely on the written contract and his/her own inspections of the property.

        Hello Games / Sony made out NMS to be a dream product and people inserted themselves into that dream and twisted it to suit themselves. When it came to buy the game, there was no clause that said 'buyer must disregard prior representations'. Most people just handed over money on trust that the game would conform to the representations that had been made.

        This is why demos are so important for consumers. The devs and publishers don't generally like them as they can take a lot of work to create and may turn people off a game if the game itself is not as great as it was made out to be. A demo essentially lets a potential purchaser do a pre-purchase inspection of the product and make up their own mind (without the hype) as to whether the product is worth buying.

        Bottom line, people have a right to a refund if the only information they are given about a product is the hype and the product doesn't reasonably conform to that hype. In this case, it was a little of column A and a little of column B: the game was mostly 'as advertised' but there are clearly some discrepancies.

          If that clause was needed, then the only mistake Hello Games and Sony made was vastly overestimating the intelligence of the public.

        Yeah exactly!!

        Valve is always like this, they have a reputation for being really flexible with their refund policy.
        Sony is allowing a little bit of breathing room on their refund policy also, good guy Sony, they love handing back money.

        The fact that they both decided to offer loose refunds, in the same week, for the same game, is just them saying:
        "We got a few rare requests for refunds that were completely irrational, but we thought, to hell with pesky policy and refunded them anyway"
        (Or it's just a random coincidence)

        Sean isn't hiding either, he awaits us in the centre of the universe where he shall anoint us as true believers.
        We shall stand with the creator above 18 quintillion planets.
        We shall ask him to carry us in to the infinite void, and he shall tell us, no, it's actually single player with limited online features, amen.

    It was always going to happen, No Man's Sky was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

    I played INSIDE on the weekend. My expectations were very high, but when finishing it 'quickly' (it's a narrative-driven game) and getting to the end, I realised something.

    I didn't like it.

    Now, where's my refund?

    It's not No Man's Sky that's necessarily going to suffer here, it's all the games like INSIDE which will.

    I don't want a refund for INSIDE. The journey was more meaningful than the destination. We're going to see a lot of games like INSIDE mis-treated by Valve/Steam/the userbase and in the end, those games will appear on Steam less and less.

    There's no winners here.

      That's assuming INSIDE misled in its marketing....

      Did it?

        There was no marketing for INSIDE. That's what I'm getting at. I'm being freely offered the chance to accuse the game of such, because of Valve's practices.

          Whats your alternative solution? Previously it was No refunds no matter what. Is that what you want?

          People are entitled to a refund if the games marketing was deceptive/ Not as advertised (No mans sky) or the game simply does not work.

          BTW, Steam has previously stated people who repeatedly request refunds on game such as the one you mentioned above will have their refund privileges revoked.

          Last edited 29/08/16 6:14 pm

            Brother, if I had an alternative solution I'd be richer than Gabe!

            I don't envy Valve, it's definitely as major a player in the industry as any of the console companies, and it seems to add another feather to its cap every year or so.

            So it deserves the scrutiny such a fiasco as this would warrant. At best, the refund disclaimer - on the game's store page - is clumsy and makes No Man's Sky look quite bad. At worst, it's petty and smacks of frustration. With us, the customers.

            'Deceptive' games marketing is dangerous talk. Apparently you can't advertise a game early in development and expect your audience to understand development changes things anymore. That's a shame. The only winners out of that are the EBs/etc who get the pre-order money at the outset.

            We don't know what shape the Final Fantasy 7 remake will take, all we know is we're getting one. Should we target Sony/Square-Enix now or upon release when we get what we all know won't be a 1:1 retread?

            The NX hasn't been formally announced by Nintendo yet games journalists and forum members alike are talking about 'the pitch' already. Should we begin a class action because the console won't cure cancer when it releases?

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8P2CZg3sJQ

              That is all.

                A bunch of cobbled together footage outright lifted from who knows how many outlets to create a context. OK.

                Hey, I laughed at the Russian dude though.

                  yea , its mainly funny, but main point was the crashes at the end it is the video that has the most of em , if you watch streamers people crashed CONSTANTLY angryjoe crashed 6 times in 50 mins

            Ditch refunds and let users sell off used/unwanted games in Steam Marketplace?

            Steam may well threaten people with that as a way to try and get people who are not aware of their rights to not attempt a refund, but they can't actually revoke someone's refund privileges. It's a privilege granted by Australian consumer law, not by Steam.

              Incorrect, In Australian consumer law you are only entitled to a refund if:

              it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it
              it is unsafe
              it is significantly different from the sample or description
              it doesn’t do what the business said it would, or what you asked for and can’t easily be fixed.

              Refunding a game because you finished it in under 2 hours does not fall under those categories

                My mistake I thought you meant refund privileges generally, not just the specific 'we'll refund it for any reason no questions asked if you've played it for less than 2 hours and had it for less than 14 days' part.

                  Well if you did something similar IRL like buying something using for a bit and then returning it for a refund would count as fraud.

                  Not if the person you bought it of says 'I will refund the item you purchased no questions asked if you ask for a refund within two weeks of purchase and have used it for less than two hours.' But you're quite right - given this is essentially a specific offer from steam, they are quite within their rights to withdraw it if they feel someone is abusing the system.

          There's a difference between 'No marketing' and 'misleading marketing'

          I can see what you are saying, but history would argue otherwise.

          Valve tends to act, case by case, game by game, when it comes to refunds.
          They are also very cautious to act, unless there are serious allegations with solid legal framework.
          (No matter how you feel about NMS, its facing serious allegations of misleading consumers)

          It's as you said, in many ways this is the straw that broke the camels back, but there is no question as to why.
          Everyone has a little blame to shoulder for this, but there isn't a single question as to what the central catalyst was.

          What matters is how move forward.
          If we don't pursue practical change in the industry and its practices, then NMS's fall would have been for nothing.

            I still want to play the game, so I have no exact 'feelings' about NMS, and to look into those serious allegations would be to the detriment of my own eventual gaming experience.

            That comes with the territory of this medium.

            I haven't got any interest in 'pre-launch' No Man's Sky, it could have been any of the AAA franchises I already didn't care about. That said, what little I read about it once the feedback came out, it sounded okay.

            I don't think Sony should escape scot-free here, but that's exactly what's happening.

              Oh ho ho, not exactly, they too have opened their coin purses to begin dishing out refunds.
              One Sony rep already released a statement that he was upset that people who have played for long periods of time were asking for refunds.
              (Chastises players for wanting refund, but scrambles to offer and facilitate quick and fast refunds....yah, sounds like there's nothing to see here)

              In many cases in the past, I would agree with him, but with NMS it is a special case again. (one I can relate to)
              In terms of gameplay time, sure.
              But this gameplay time wasn't spent invested in enjoyment, it was spent soldiering on in hope that Sean's No Mans Sky was out there somewhere.

              Before the penny dropped, a friend asked what the game was like. I told him I couldn't give him a fair answer because I wasn't sure if I was seeing everything. A few systems later I realised I had already seen all there is to see mechanically.

              Anyway, don't let anyone take your love of the game away, stick to the official website and avoid any independent coverage over the coming months
              (Because things can only go two ways at this stage, and both are just varied amounts of worse)

                I haven't bought or played the game. I am interested in what it's doing to people, however.

      Inside basically had no marketing. It was also a very, VERY good game that does what it's supposed to do very well without trying to over-state itself in any real way.
      No Man's sky is a massive lie that was sold as a AAA but is just a shitty, unpolished indie.

        The replies are a bit wonky tonight so apologies if this doesn't end up where it should.

        Hey I want to talk about Inside all day, but as someone who bought a console just to play Limbo, I was so pumped for Inside. I had a rollicking time, but the final stuff sullied the whole game for me. I felt lied to, but that's part of the game's intent as the kind of game it is. I respect it for what it is, even though I didn't exactly like it in the end.

        And yeah I need/want to replay it straight away!

      I think we have a difference between a product that is not misleading but merely not to someone's liking and a product that is the subject of misleading advertising. It's for that reason that most movie trailers (most) make damn sure that all the footage is actually in the movie itself, even if the trailer is cut in a sexier / more dramatic / more action-focused way. I think the problem in this case stems from creators (e.g. Sean Murray) saying more than they should have or not clarifying that the statements were subject to change as they related to a work in progress.

        Oh man, I don't think I can adequately describe how I feel about Sean Murray.
        I don't hate the guy in any way, if anything I really feel sorry for him

        No pun intended, the guy had stars in his eyes. We were all enthralled with the beared Brit, not only his game, but the genuine excitement he displayed.
        Even now it's hard to watch the footage and not be carried away.

        However, I can't just issue a pass for the, plucky Indie dev who dreamed too big and overreached, cliché.
        I'm kind of getting sick of developers promising the world, then under delivering while recycling the same truths about development and how gamers need to understand this and that.
        It's always after the fact, after the cruel reality is revealed.

        Back to NMS and Sean specifically, I'm kinda watching in morbid interest as the man who couldn't get out of public eye pre release, has essentially vanished behind the odd Twitter post.
        I'm genuinely interested to see how this will all play out.
        That guy has quite a few procedurely generated crosses to bare (let's face it, they are really the same once you see enough of them)

        Last edited 30/08/16 2:31 am

    Honestly... i cannot come to think who is at fault in this situation. Would it be Hello Games for developing the game, gamers who imagined features of the game that weren't there or the media blowing so much smoke up this games arse.

      You can't really blame people for imagining things when they ask "can we do these things?" and the lead dev flat out says "yes. It's in the game."

      Hello games completely, The blatantly misled the public about the content in the game to drive sales. Its like me selling you a car claiming its like a ferrari but in reality its a lemon

        You keep saying that. Does not make it true. Relevant; https://blog.mode7games.com/promising-the-earth-no-mans-sky-c6227ae3a35d#.5dwofmoun

        Last edited 29/08/16 6:46 pm

          Actually its does make in true. I sense a fanboi within you. Cant handle people saying negative things about your favourite toy

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTTPlqK8AnY

          Here is a list of just a few things the devs promised, but are missing from the game

          planetary physics
          ship classes with meaningful differentiation
          faction reputation with meaningful gameplay impact
          homogenous resource availability
          asteroid landings
          space station and fleet destruction
          large fleets
          traveling freighters
          large scale battles the player can join
          in-atmosphere battles
          NPCs outside trading posts and other docks
          ringed planets
          sand planets
          flying between stars (as opposed to warping via the Galactic interface)
          complex creature behaviour including environmental interaction
          rivers
          points of interest such as large structures and crashed freighters
          hacking locked doors
          radio chatter
          interaction with other players

            That's a solid list. I would say that they had managed to get the following features in there the reception would have been a lot better:

            * planetary physics
            * ship classes with meaningful differentiation
            * faction reputation with meaningful gameplay impact
            * homogenous resource availability
            * large scale battles the player can join
            * in-atmosphere battles

            On the other hand, this one:
            * flying between stars (as opposed to warping via the Galactic interface)
            ...seems a little pointless? Whats the maths on this? If it take a month real time why bother implementing it?

              It wasn't so much the ability to fly between stars (though I'm sure some crazies would have) it's because of the whole design of the game. Right up to April this year he constantly said how the game is unlike any other because it is built on a simulation where the entire universe is, well, simulated realistically. Rotating planets revolving around a star in a galaxy of stars, etc.

              The fact that we can't travel between systems is just more proof (as if we needed more than the rotationless skybox planets) that this whole simulation thing was a load of crap. Can't really blame this one on 'hope/dream that didn't make the final cut.' It's the basis of the entire game, cutting it out would mean rebuilding everything from scratch - something that would not have happened in a few months.

      Personally I think we all have a little blame in the bigger picture, technically.

      But the parts we need to own up to as gamers and journalists are part of a wider discussion and personal realisation.
      While NMS adds to that discussion, the situation they now find themselves in is one of their own making and fault.

      I think that people getting refunds, outside of the standard policy conditions, is a pretty clear sign that HG screwed the pooch too.

    Hope Sean actually has a comment on the launch rather than taking everyone's money and then radio silence.

      I think he's been muzzled. Notice how he promised to basically keep working on it and release that for free, then had to backpedal? The general vibe I am getting is that the marketing deal with Sony probably gives them a lot of say over what Hello can say.

    I got my refund. I just walked back into EB and handed them the disc.

    I also found out that they don't offer refunds for games that were price matched, but they let me go just this one time.

      haha, they've never said that to me when I've returned games that were price matched.

        That seems like a store-centric policy, surely.

      I would hazard that's against Australian Consumer Law to refuse a return based on a price match, they still sold the item to you, regardless of what price it was at. If it's not as advertised, it's able to be refunded.

        They could refuse to offer their 7-day 'change of mind' refund thing though. I think the EB near me would still do it regardless of a price match but wouldn't surprise me if some store managers refused to.

          Yeah that's right. There's a difference between ACL refunds and store policy on 'change of mind'. You can't refuse the first, but you can the second as long as it is made clear at the time of purchase. If it was buried in the terms and conditions you might argue that you relied on the change of mind policy when making the purchase and that the store should be prevented from enforcing the policy.

      No store "offers refunds". They're required to give them under Australian Consumer Law. If they won't then they get reported and fined, simple.

      If the product was faulty (wouldn't run on your PC) or wasn't as advertised it's your right as a consumer that you're entitled to a refund regardless of what the retailer's policy is.

        There's a difference between ACL refunds and voluntary 'change of mind' refunds. The first can't be refused but the second can, subject to circumstances.

          Hence why I stated if the product was faulty or wasn't as advertised....

      I've not had this problem before (they obviously refund the price paid) and as an earlier poster suggests about Australian Consumer Law, EB would not be able to deny your refund.

      What gets me though is that they will now be charging full retail price for what is essentially your preowned copy of No Man's Sky. This is why I can't stand to buy retail from EB anymore. Should have seen the looks I got when I demanded a copy with the seal still intact.

        I don't understand how they can open products, as well as passing off traded-in or refunded games as brand new!

          Man, I remember when The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker was released with a bonus disc containing OoT and OoT: Master Quest. My local EB was selling them separately, the wankers. :/

        Stores must work differently from each other. The stores in my area always go out the back and return with a sealed copy with no stickers or anything, then return the copy you pulled back onto the shelf.

    A mile wide and an inch deep never fit so perfectly. Yeah I gave a refund some serious thought but I'd put in about 25 hours at the time so decided not to. Up to about 40 now and regretting that decision. That being said it did genuinely allow me to better conceptualise the scale of our universe so I'm not bummed out about it or anything, just dunno if that knowledge was really worth $80. Should've gone with Human Revolution instead methinks...

    It's not like you can't ask for a refund if you've got more than 2hrs played or owned the game for more than a fortnight anyway: the refund policy specifically states that if you are outside of those refund rules that you can still ask for a refund and they'll take a look. Although I imagine they'd only be giving them out now in very rare circumstances given the sheer volume of people who seem to be asking for one. Aiming for misrepresentation through the advertising would be the key I imagine, and given the stupidly large number of planets in the game I don't think it's completely unreasonable to suggest that it took 20-30 hours or whatever to realise that the game wasn't what was being represented in the advertising.

    Last edited 29/08/16 3:56 pm

    people are the worst.

      I know, right? I'm loving the many, many reviews (sorry, was watching Police Academy earlier) from people who bought a space exploration-sim who're complaining about the vast, empty space and having to explore it! WTAF?! lol!

      For this game its hard to tell if you are talking about Sean Murray or the people who bought No Mans Sky.

        definitely the people who bought No Man's Sky, played it for several hours, then think they are entitled to a refund.

    I was thinking of buying it when it was a little cheaper. Is it really that bad?? How much do you think it is worth??

      About half.

      Which is generous since there's a lot of similar F2P games on steam.

      I tried it on a friend's computer and found it to be boring as hell. That said I'm not into exploration games that are just there for the sake of exploring. I also found the UI to be horrible, nothing in the menus were intuitive and it's all console focused without a redesign for PC.

      I'd say paying anything over $40 is a rip off and even then $40 is only if you're feeling generous.

      Last edited 29/08/16 4:09 pm

      It's not bad, it's just that there's not any point to it, so to speak. There is no goal (I don't consider the 'get to the centre/Atlas' elements to be fleshed out enough to really be described as a story or point or motivation), and the procedurally generated elements don't interact with one another in any meaningful way, so there's no 'emergent gameplay' or whatever. Also every single planet you 'discover' is already teeming with alien outposts and what not, so the exploration element falls pretty flat after a while too. Also bugs. lots and lots of bugs.

      That being said, once I realised all that and just started playing it, without trying to 'do' anything specifically I started to have more fun. If you go into it with that in mind it's probably worth picking up when it gets cheap.

      Last edited 29/08/16 4:11 pm

      $10 at most.

      There is absolutely nothing to this game. You click on rocks and move from one planet to the next to click on more rocks.

        And yet I feel exactly the same way about that game where you drive around a bit, shoot a few people then drive around some more. Each to their own.

        Last edited 29/08/16 5:59 pm

          GTA? GTA is pretty crappy too. At least the game has character and story though...and pretty much more of anything really.

        lol. What were you expecting? There was nothing about gameplay before release, there were articles asking wtf you were meant to do in the game because nobody knew.

        You bought right into the hype.

        you mean unlike CoD where you shoot some people, then shoot some more people, and then some more for five hours and every year people $100 for a reskin. Unlike say something like Overwatch where you play the same 8 odd maps over and over changing heroes every now and again... each to their own... just because you dont find worth it in that doesnt mean everyone finds no worth

    Lol... are people serious? "I don't like it, give me a refund"? Yeah ok, try that at the cinema next time you watch a movie you don't like.

      You've always been able to do that at the movies. Just gotta be within the first 30mins. 🙄

      Yeahhh, except it would be like if the studio advertised a bunch of amazing actors or actresses would be starring in the movie, but then you got there every character was played by charlie sheen rocked off his socks on coccaine (including the black character that dies in the opening act).

      Sure, this may sound amazing at first, but you would wander why you are paying full price for what is essentially a bait and switch.

        You mean like. Executive decision starring Steven Seagal and he dies in the first 2 minutes?

          That would be a good argument to have. Were there flashbacks at least?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sL102pyaLg

      Ummm, you can get refunds at cinemas. Sat through about 20 min of Pixels before getting a refund. Cinemas have to give a refund per Australian Consumer Law

        If the reason for the refund falls within the ACL, of course you can. Nobody can deny the application of the ACL at all, including cinemas. But if you went into the movie, watched 20 minutes, didn't like it, and walked out and got a refund because of that reason, then you got it by the good graces of the cinema rather than based on any application of ACL. Which is pretty much my point. The ACL doesnt protect you against changing your mind about wanting something.

        Last edited 30/08/16 9:44 am

      I've done that before. It's no problem. I asked to see another movie and they didn't mind.

    It seems a lot of people are confused. "This game was not as advertised. I would not my money back." is NOT the same thing as "I didn't like this game. I would like my money back."

    Was this game overhyped? Yes.
    Did people believe there would be things in this game that the devs never stated would be in this game? More than likely.
    Were the devs actually dishonest about the content of their games and features therein? YES.
    Do we have a right to be upset at devs that, for all we can determine, were either intentionally misleading people to sell more games OR were ignorant of their own product? OF COURSE!

    Now here's the big one. Since it can be proven (you won't have to look hard for video evidence) that the game was falsely advertised to players, should players be allowed their refund?

      There's no question of "should". Australian Consumer Law states quite clearly that if something isn't sold as advertised then you're entitled to a refund.

      That's why false advertising doesn't last long.

      Were the devs actually dishonest about the content of their games and features therein? YES.

      Where, though? Where did they say 'Hey, feature xxxx is guaranteed to be in the finished product!" and then advertise it on the box and run ads saying 'XXX IS IN NO MANS SKY!'?

      Once a game is released, Pre-release interviews are not advertising. Pre-release trailers are not advertising. Pre-release dev diaries are not advertising. What some game website made up about the game based on speculation is not advertising.

      Last edited 29/08/16 6:48 pm

        The fanboi is strong with you.

        Pre release anything is advertising for the game. they use it to get people interested in the game so they buy it. Hello games lied. Thats a fact.

          As he asked, where? You say its a fact, but where is the lie? The closest to it is a one word answer in an interview asking 70 questions in 6 minutes, hardly the smoking gun people want it to be. Also rather dated.

          It was made abundantly clear before release there should be zero expectation of multiplayer, theres your pre release advertising. People got burned for their own stupidity. This isnt some big studio, so why were people so happy to plonk down their cash without seeing the game?

          Wait a day or two and see reviews, and this doesnt happen. But people wanted to be fanboi's, not the well informed consumer they should have been.

            Not exactly, they said you should have a very limited expectation of multiplayer simply because it was extremely unlikely that you would actually run into any other players given the size of the game. There's an important distinction between that and an actual, literal absence of your ability to interact with other players in the game, which is what the game has. Also the claims it would be extremely unlikely anyone would bump into anyone else also appear to be garbage - two players met up on the same planet on the first day of release.

              Day 1, when every other online game released in the past decade has had nothing but problems. As I keep asking, why is THIS the dealbreaker though? Its NOT a multiplayer game, why are people so caught up in the fact it isnt?

              Go have a look at the comment Murray made for yourself, and put a timeline to them. As the game was developed, he moved further and further away from a multiplayer aspect, stating time after time that very thing.

              Yet he's the antichrist, because he once said 'yes', when pressured for one word answers. I'll argue that it IS multiplayer. You see the effects of what others have done, I saw it in my second system when I hit my first Atlas sphere, and found it had been discovered by someone else before me. Along with all the planets in the system, the next system, and the system after that, combined with a second name.

              Would have probably kept happening all the way to the center if I hadnt jumped into a black hole. If thats not multiplayer, what is it? I'm seeing the effect of other players.

          its nothing to do with being a fanboy but being an adult. things change all the time during game development, hell that's why its called games development. sometimes it minor things sometimes it big things.

          why do you think people add the "game in development, all things subject to change" on a lot of videos? because most smart and mature people know that is part of the process, we dont need to be told that because it is so blindly obvious. sadly they have to put that disclaimer in for people who are more thick and dont understand the thoroughly obvious.

    Got my refund. Used the money to buy Legion. Still unsure if that was a wise move or not...

      What, the WoW expansion? Unwise move.

    I think the main problem is the price tag. If it was $40 the backlash would be much less vocal.

    such a perfect example of self-fulfilling prophecy in action.

    I dont doubt it has issues but with the constant hatefest surrounding it and the CONSTANT media coverage of it, it no longer matters id it is good or not, peoples ability to constructively value it themselves on their own terms. All the negativity and constant badgering just helps reinforce the idea that youi are suppose to hate it.

    I speak from experience. I love the game, even with its flaws but had to put it down because all this pathetic negativity has made the game feel rotten for me. when I play all I can see it all those little niggly things I have read about that didnt matter to me suddenly at very huge.

    No game deserve THIS. Sure the devs werent entirely innocent but did three years of their life need to amount to THIS?! I personally think that.

    Last edited 29/08/16 4:49 pm

      The game does deserve it, If people arent satisfied with the game and feel they have been lied to they are perfectly entitled to a refund. If the devs dont want a backlash perhaps they should not lie about the content in the game, Or perhaps deliver on their promises next time

      The devs reap what they sow

        No. You are not entitled to a refund if you feel lied to. You are entitled to a refund if you are lied to.

          We were lied to. The devs lied about the features that would be present in the game. Thats not feeling, Thats fraud mate.

            nope thats called games development, everything is subject to change. you cant totally blame them because you fell for their advertising and ambition. whats next, you believe a politician during an election cycle?!

              If a company falsely advertises something in Australia. The Customer is entitled to a full refund and the company can have legal action brough upon them. Happened to many food companies who claim their food has certain ingredients or has certain properties when it doesnt. If someone advertises a game claiming it has these features, i promise, And then fails to deliver, Thats false advertising.

              Hello games lied, And im glad i got my money back. These shitty devs wont be seeing my money any time soon.

              The devs lied, Stop making excuses for them because people are hating on your favorite toy.

                yes but the 'product' in this case is only finished when the game is launched. one doesnt have to be that old to realise that that. Its only been a gaming standard since ATARI boxes look nothing like the games. so 35 odd years now. everything before launch is subject to change, everything is just ambition or hope.

                you as a consumer have a choice and make an informed purchase. just it seems you would rather going on about lies and conspiracy

                I'm well aware of what constitutes false advertising. I'm well aware of Australian Consumer Law says on the issue. Heck, let's lookie at COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SCHEDULE 2. Section 29.

                Division 1 -- False or misleading representations etc.
                29 False or misleading representations about goods or services
                (1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:
                (a) make a false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use; or
                (b) make a false or misleading representation that services are of a particular standard, quality, value or grade; or
                (c) make a false or misleading representation that goods are new; or
                (d) make a false or misleading representation that a particular person has agreed to acquire goods or services; or
                (e) make a false or misleading representation that purports to be a testimonial by any person relating to goods or services; or
                (f) make a false or misleading representation concerning:
                (i) a testimonial by any person; or
                (ii) a representation that purports to be such a testimonial;
                relating to goods or services; or
                (g) make a false or misleading representation that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits; or
                (h) make a false or misleading representation that the person making the representation has a sponsorship, approval or affiliation; or
                (i) make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services; or
                (j) make a false or misleading representation concerning the availability of facilities for the repair of goods or of spare parts for goods; or
                (k) make a false or misleading representation concerning the place of origin of goods; or
                (l) make a false or misleading representation concerning the need for any goods or services; or
                (m) make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy (including a guarantee under Division 1 of Part 3-2); or
                (n) make a false or misleading representation concerning a requirement to pay for a contractual right that:
                (i) is wholly or partly equivalent to any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy (including a guarantee under Division 1 of Part 3-2); and
                (ii) a person has under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (other than an unwritten law).

                I don't see anything about features being cut in there, do you?

                Last edited 30/08/16 6:04 pm

        yeah well if they were wise enough to know that they were lied to, they should have been wise enough not to preorder or buy the game before they read the reviews and watch streams. but where is the fun in that? its way easier to whine about lies and blame someone else for their own shortfalls and their own choice to pay money.

        I am not saying lying is good nor do I totally agree with this whole lie-gate hatefest BUT I am not comfortable joining a 'stacks on' or making the devs these faceless THEY, because its is always easier to blame the they/them than how we personally were the ones who decided to spend our money.

        Politicians lies, dogs bite, game developers up-sell. To get upset at such predicable things is a waste of energy.

        Last edited 29/08/16 7:21 pm

          Your knowledge of Australian consumer law needs work.

            as does your knowledge of game development. there is a difference between making an informed purchase based on the unique standards in the gaming development world, than demonising game developers for changing their minds. You must really really hate following MMO games which change weekly during development, over years, then even after launch the game you buy may not end up being the same game you pay for years after launch.

            Everything during games development is in a state of flux. Sometimes you see a video that has a "game in development, everything is subject to change", thats put in so even blockheads would understand. Where as the rest of us are mature enough to understand, during a creative process things change.

              Inexplicable passive aggression aside, you've got the basic facts of this scenario wrong. If the game developer doesn't actually add "game in development, everything is subject to change," or if they repeatedly state something is present in the product they are making and then it turns out on release that it isn't, then in Australia at least they can be held to the prior representations they made regarding the content present in the product they are making. It's pretty simple. The misrepresentations Sean Murray made regarding No Man's Sky are well documented and occurred during presentations he made at numerous major press events like E3, not just in random interviews. If you don't accept that a refund is valid in this situation, you sir, are the blockhead.

                by well documented, you mean all those youtube videos scrapped together and edited to villainise him like a Current Affairs criminal. Complete with zoom ins and slow mo shots and rapid repetition. Cheap tricks, for not very bright people. or well documented like that epic tome on reddit that would have probably taken the author longer to write and compile than getting to the centre of the galaxy. Pass. I am not saying the devs are guilt free but gamers need to learn to 'adult' and take some of their own responsibility, instead of laying blame at everyone elses feet, instead of the one who didnt read the reviews or watch streams but still spent money.

                It like buying a bottle of snake oil from a snake oil salesmen. There is always an inherent chance it might not end badly but ultimately it is gamer who chooses to spend their money on hot air not facts.

                Well I am not sure what to say I dont need to see the words "game in development, everything is subject to change" crawling across the scene every time I see a games dev talk at a trade show or when I see pre-launch videos. That is implied. More than that, it is expected that what I am seeing.

                Incorrect, derrick. It's only the representations that are made after a product is released that matter. Star Wars TFA had scenes in the trailers that weren't in the movie, by your logic that would entail that Disney made misrepresentations about and falsly advertised the movie.

    love this game. sure im a bit sad that it doesnt have all the stuff they advertised, but i never really jumped on the hype train, so im quite happy to hang about and keep playing. and then, if they decided to release updates that include extra features, ill probably enjoy the game even more.

      It's sad that you enjoy a pointless grindfest

        It's not pointless if you set your own goals :-)

        For example, I just spent around 50 hours out of 100 or so in Fire Emblem Fates grinding the same battle over and over again just to breed and level up my army's children. There was absolutely no point in me doing that except for my own pleasure. I could have beaten the game without it with no difficulty whatsoever.

          i do the same thing! i keep grinding the grand staircase over and over and over again.

        what's sad is that you think someone else's likes and dislikes are sad because they dont match your own.

        i also enjoy fire emblem games, rocket league, team fortress 2, GTA 5, Spelunky, Mario Kart and plenty of other games i cant be assed listing. every game has its place. for me, No Mans Sky is how i unwind and relax. if that involves grinding and exploring, then hey, im not ashamed.

      I'm with you. While I haven't played in a while, this will be my "zen" game for when I want to zone out and relax.

      But from a purely objective view, I've gotten 30 hours out of it so far. I see that as value for money at $2.30 per hour. It meets my movie comparison calculation.

        its definitely a good way to look at it.
        i have guys at work that look at game costs in relation to buying beers on a night out, where they would usually spend $50 to $100 in drinks. so they spend less on a game, and get many more hours of enjoyment and no hangover out of it.

    No suprise really, The Devs essentially lied about the content in the game. The game initially ran like utter shit, Has barely improved now.

    The game in its current form has less content than an early access survival game you see on Steam. Dayz has more content and depth than No mans sky.

    This game is worth $20 at the most.

    Nothing to do with hype, All to do with the Devs blatantly lying to the public

    The more refunds, the better. This will help ensure that future publishers either advertise accurately or complete the development properly.

    I find it silly, small dev company releases an over hyped game with some bugs and fails to meet some gamers unrealistic expectations and the internet melts, large dev companies release bug ridden games every day and no one even blinks.
    Take Deus Ex, great game, till you encounter one of the quest bugs that halts any progression, literally unplayable, yet I don't see 20 articles on how much the gaming community is shitting itself.

    Was I pissed that NMS corrupted my save game and I had to start over, of course, does that make it any more qq worthy than Deus Ex CTDing every time I try to use the subway? no.

    Gamers in the current climate are exceptionally entitled and whiny. It seems to be the current trend to have some kind of consumer pack mentality and trash everything because it doesn't conform to their specific notion of what a game should be.

      Oh totally. How dare players hold devs to account for what they have said! We should just give them money not matter what they give us. They devs should be free to lie to us to get our money!

        No. You should be more careful about what you buy in the first place. I didn't buy this game for this exact reason. It was all hype and no substance before the release. Many, many articles about how nobody knew wtf the gameplay was were written pre-release. Despite this, people got swept up in it without thinking properly about the purchase and then regretted it when the inevitable failure to meet the hype occurred.

          So all those who bought arkham knight on pc shouldt get a refund because its not the devs fault the port was a piece of shit. Its the players fault? Are you a moron?

          Seriously, Im done, You are like a brick wall. Defending a company that lied. Glad they arent getting any of my money. Almost feel like torrenting the game out of spite

          Last edited 30/08/16 5:52 pm

            Calm down, mate. No, if the game is as broken and unplayable as Arkham Knight was, of course you should be able to get a refund. But there's a difference between a broken, barely playable game and something that doesn't meet the the sky-high expectations that people helped create themselves because they didn't exercise a little critical thinking about what was being developed, or because they couldn't wait a few days until after release to get actual hands on thoughts. If you get so worked up about a game failing to deliver, that may just be what you need to do with every game. Might save you a heart attack.

            Have a look at the concept of puffery. Not everything advertised is a promise to you that has to be met. And don't ignore the fact that lots of what is shown in developer videos is a feature wishlist; there are shitloads of games out there that fail to deliver things that are shown in demos/Developer highlights. There is no expectation that everything you see in those games will be precisely as it was shown.

            Ultimately, this company didn't deserve money for the game because it's barely even a game, not because of some perceived sense of grievance about them 'lying'.

              "Ultimately, this company didn't deserve money for the game because it's barely even a game, not because of some perceived sense of grievance about them 'lying'."

              Finally something i can agree on with you :)

              If the game was $20 and/Or an early access game, No one would have any issues :)

      Nobody trashed Witcher 3.

      Did you ever think that perhaps gamer's didn't become more whiny, maybe publishers have just been coming up with new ways to get more money for less product?

      Last edited 29/08/16 8:03 pm

        you kidding me the same stupid people tried to derail its launch because they had to optimise their graphics and it no longer looked like it did in the pre-launch videos. it was a massive hatefest just like this, with all the OMG they lied to us blah blah. They tried to melt down steam reviews and the like, they acted like it was the worse crime ever. now its the most respected game of last year or maybe the decade. lol.

        But yes what you said after that was very true.

    Sometimes I wonder how many people followed everything that was said and actually felt lied to and how many people are just using being lied to as an excuse. To me the marketing behind this game had always been pretty vague although I didn't really follow it so much. I never really understood the hype behind the game and I only purchased it out of curiosity and because my friends were playing. I enjoyed it.

    Wow, gamers have become an embarrassing bunch of hyper-entitled whining babies.

    Spoiler: if it wasn't on the box, or on a TV advert or on a poster in the shop or the PSN page, it wasn't a promise. Anyone who has worked on a complex project knows that you start out with goals, and sometimes you have to adjust or bin them to meet what is technically possible, to meet budget or meet schedule. That's not "lies", that's practical reality.

    All these folk are also the same ones who whine that there's no original games. Well guess what? Why would anyone take a risk if this is the reaction? Fart out some me-too FPS and save yourself the grief.

    Ironically, it looks like everything that folk are complaining about is from adding stuff to counter "bbbut what do you DO??" questions early on.

    NMS is *very* different. Hell, the idea of not hoovering up every item, and checking very corner feels wrong after a life of "normal" games. But get your head in the space that you're grazing, not consuming everything, and it's a truly wonderful experience. The devs poured heart and soul into it, and it shows.

    I hope the Sean and the Hello Games team know how many folk are loving the hell out of this game and are busy playing it not bitching on twitter and steam.

    NMS is the game I've wanted to play since I was a kid. It is what was in my head when I played Elite on the BBC micro (I'm old). It's a stunning achievement, especially for a small dev team. I am loving every minute of it, warts and all.

    TL;DR: f**k these guys - I'm off exploring.

    What are you talking about? Sean Murray had countless interviews with him saying there would be Multi-player in the past. The very first time he said don't expect it was 2 days before launch. Make sure you do your research before you open your mouth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVrDaudzn64

      Even if they add multiplayer, what would that mean? Just farming elements together? It wont change the core mechanic of the game. This game just needs more to it.

    Up until now I assume Steam was more lenient with the occasional refund, happy customers and all that.

    Now if they give a refund outside the official rules, they know that it will be publicised and they will have to deal with a massive influx. I am guessing that the rules will be enforced far more strongly now.

    Good work gamers who are obsessed with destroying NMS. You probably just tightened up Steam's refund policy to the detriment of gamers. That's definitely an own goal.

    I never understood the incredible hype this game was recieving. When I saw the launch trailer, I was kinda of "meh" on it. Seemed cool, but not to the level everyone was making it out to be. It was obvious that this game would not deliver. Their development team was small. Theres only so much the game can have with such a limited team. Us as gamers have to learn to temper our expectations. The game was initially shown as a space travel sim where you find new planets. Where was the actual "game" in that description? What else did we expect from this game? The gamers are at fault too. We cant put all the blame on Sony and Hello.

    I still don't understand how some people bought in to the hype so much. I was attacked on another site for saying i was waiting to buy because i hadn't seen enough real gameplay yet. It's a small dev team, what they've released isn't bad and is good for the size of their team but there was never going to be a chance they made the game they talked about in interviews

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now