GT6 - Could we have cause to get our money back?

[Davoxx]

The agreed time limit.

Unfortunately, SCEE gave us none and we bought the game anyway. The agreed time limit is, thus the lifetime of the game.If you don't give a time limit and I agree to it, yes. If not and we can't come to an agreement, I can reject the car for a full refund based on a pre-existing fault. SOGA!

SOGA also gives you recourse here - if the product does not match with what the retailer says, you may return the item for a full refund based on it not being fit for purpose. However, you only have six months to do this from purchase (SOGA gives further protection in the case of faulty goods).Indeed. The booklet - being inside a sealed box that you couldn't access until after purchase - can only be regarded as supporting material, not advertising material. The presence of the description and, as you say, the tab in the game indicates a feature that was very latterly removed (presumably between mid September and early December, after the master was sent for duplication and during the v1.01 development) for reasons unknown.

But SCEE never advertised the feature as being present (to my knowledge - I should check the Wayback Machine, but I don't recall it from any press releases), only as available for a future update.Then it ought to be clear that what appears on the SCEE website, UK version, is what we actually have - though those of us with internet-enabled consoles and the time to download things now have 37.5% of the "future update" features.Heh, that's the truth.I don't know what the "empty promises" are. As I've said, they've released 37.5% of the "future update" features in the last 4 months - if they keep that rate up, we'll have them all before December 2014 - despite not giving any kind of schedule. The Vision GT schedule - as @Jose Mendonca mentioned - seems a bit awry (though this may depend on vehicle manufacturers, making any delay a Matter Beyond Our Reasonable Control [MBORC] for PD/SCEI) but they did originally say it would be "Over the course of approximately 1 year" and we're not there yet.

A couple of things have been teased by SCE sources (mainly SCEA) - like Zahara - and it's not unreasonable to expect people to be annoyed that an official source says something will be with us in February and for it not to be here yet in nearly-May but, as far as I'm aware, this information has never been corroborated by official press releases or website updates. I've been saying since the days of GT4 that until there is an official statement from SCE, it's not real - even if we at GTPlanet say it or if an SCE source of some kind says it.There aren't any.

PD removed the distinction of Premium and Standard cars - this was announced by SCE well before release - and is actually fairly reasonable given that there's now four(ish) levels of cars, which I term Standard, Enhanced Standard, Premium and GT6. Standard cars are their lovely, blocky selves. Enhanced Standards have updated body models but retain Simplified interiors. Premium cars are the new-to-GT5 models with Detailed interiors (except those cars that have no interior to detail!) and GT6 cars use adaptive tessellation to put them above Premium quality.

However, on the official website they do say:I'm not familiar with this. As far as I'm aware it was always a feature for the future - though I suppose the existence of the feature in GT5 might have made people think it was in the game from the start. We covered it in November, four weeks before launch, when it was confirmed as coming in a future update - with the GPS Course Maker to follow in a second update.

I get all your points , but my point was they are not fair with us and that why I would like to see them face to the court.
I don't know another "huge" company which act like this ????
I never had this kind of problem with any product !!!!
And I'm still saying that PD is full of empty promises and don't describe the product clearly as it is (IMO) but always play with words in order to get the customer lost.
Probably this case can set a legal precedent statue (jurisprudence).
Do you think there are totally fair with us, respectful, transparent ???
I can accept a lot of things but there is a minimum and I'm thinking about Apple, I have all there products instead of they don't have best "ethic", customer services, warranty policy ..... but at list with them everything is clear.
I know apple is :censored:ing me BUT they told me since the beginning.

 

[Haitauer]

This is just getting more hilarious as the days go by. You guys have WAY too much time if you get upset on something like 60$ game. I feel sad and pitty - not for you but because of you.

Yes you could technically get a refund from the SELLER if they have used false advertising, but as long as PD has just said "in the future" it might be withing next hundred years. The game has been out what - 5 moths? I think people are just impatient. Grow some balls children and stop the whining.


"a class action" - wellcome to the US of A. Makes me as an european laugh..

 

[NJ72]

I get all your points , but my point was they are not fair with us and that why I would like to see them face to the court.

The law dictates what is "fair" and what is not; as far as that goes PD haven't broken any laws in the UK for advertising.

As illustrated previously, if you aren't happy with it then tough. You can register a complaint with PD or vent in the relevant forums, but you have no grounds to sue. If you want to face them in court, you will get laughed out of the court as you have no grounds to sue them.

 

[Famine]

I get all your points , but my point was they are not fair with us

I don't see why.

While it may differ in other regions (I think the US or Canada game box includes something different and not wholly accurate), for us in the UK the thing in the PS3 is the thing described on the site. The site went up a month before the game came out - plenty of time to cancel preorders or to self-inform. I don't see how paying money and getting exactly what's described is "unfair".

And I'm still saying that PD is full of empty promises and don't describe the product clearly as it is (IMO) but always play with words in order to get the customer lost.

Again, I don't see how. We have what was - and is - described on the site with complete accuracy. In fact we have more, because the 3/8ths of the "future updates" are already with us.

I don't see any promises PD (technically SCE - SCE handle communications, media and PR; SCEI globally and as point of first contact to PD, SCEA and SCEE in North America and Europe) made that they haven't kept. I see some things listed as "future updates" we don't have yet, but that's why they're future updates. No time period was given, but we've already got some of them.


There are occasions where SCE representatives have gone over the line - the comments about Zahara (which were never officially confirmed) or DLC tracks being available every month (which was never officially confirmed) - but with their statements never being officially confirmed, one cannot hold PD accountable for it. These were statements made by people not employed at or by PD that were not part of official PR material (like the website).

Yes, folk get excited about it and I can wholly see why they'd be a bit pissed - these were actual SCE employees saying things and that's as good as a confirmation to many. It's probably not their fault for feeling a bit hyped - and then let down.

Do you think there are totally fair with us, respectful, transparent ???

Yes.

I have what was and is described.

 

[Jose Mendonca]

So, as long as the product is cheap enough and does most of the things is supposed to do, is reasonable to ignore the rest?
Let's say you buy a car. You pay £2000 for it, but electric windows, power steering, central locking, doesn't work and will be fixed in a future update. However, it does take you from A to B and rain doesn't get inside, which is what other £2000 cars do. Is it reasonable then, because is only a £2000 car (and most new cars cost an average £10k), to ignore the shortcomings and move on?

This takes a bit of a precedent as well. If no one complains, who is to say the next GT game comes with a handful of cars and tracks, with the remainder being added 'in a future update'.

EDIT: This was a reply to Haitauer, but in the meantime got out of order

 

[Davoxx]

This is just getting more hilarious as the days go by. You guys have WAY too much time if you get upset on something like 60$ game. I feel sad and pitty - not for you but because of you.

Yes you could technically get a refund from the SELLER if they have used false advertising, but as long as PD has just said "in the future" it might be withing next hundred years. The game has been out what - 5 moths? I think people are just impatient. Grow some balls children and stop the whining.


"a class action" - wellcome to the US of A. Makes me as an european laugh..

You don't understand , it's not about money and the 60£ but matter of principles.

I don't see why.

While it may differ in other regions (I think the US or Canada game box includes something different and not wholly accurate), for us in the UK the thing in the PS3 is the thing described on the site. The site went up a month before the game came out - plenty of time to cancel preorders or to self-inform. I don't see how paying money and getting exactly what's described is "unfair".Again, I don't see how. We have what was - and is - described on the site with complete accuracy. In fact we have more, because the 3/8ths of the "future updates" are already with us.

I don't see any promises PD (technically SCE - SCE handle communications, media and PR; SCEI globally and as point of first contact to PD, SCEA and SCEE in North America and Europe) made that they haven't kept. I see some things listed as "future updates" we don't have yet, but that's why they're future updates. No time period was given, but we've already got some of them.

There are occasions where SCE representatives have gone over the line - the comments about Zahara (which were never officially confirmed) or DLC tracks being available every month (which was never officially confirmed) - but with their statements never being officially confirmed, one cannot hold PD accountable for it. These were statements made by people not employed at or by PD that were not part of official PR material (like the website).

Yes, folk get excited about it and I can wholly see why they'd be a bit pissed - these were actual SCE employees saying things and that's as good as a confirmation to many. It's probably not their fault for feeling a bit hyped - and then let down.Yes.

I have what was and is described.

IMO you have a serious problem in saying yes to "Do you think there are totally fair with us, respectful, transparent ???"
If I create a company I would like to have only customers as you .

Sorry didn't see the double post.

 

[NJ72]

So, as long as the product is cheap enough and does most of the things is supposed to do, is reasonable to ignore the rest?
Let's say you buy a car. You pay £2000 for it, but electric windows, power steering, central locking, doesn't work and will be fixed in a future update. However, it does take you from A to B and rain doesn't get inside, which is what other £2000 cars do. Is it reasonable then, because is only a £2000 car (and most new cars cost an average £10k), to ignore the shortcomings and move on?

This takes a bit of a precedent as well. If no one complains, who is to say the next GT game comes with a handful of cars and tracks, with the remainder being added 'in a future update'.

EDIT: This was a reply to NJ72, but in the meantime got out of order

I don't think this was a reply to me? I mentioned nothing about the cost of the item...?

I'm not saying don't complain, I'm just saying you have no legal grounds to sue

 

[VBR]

I think all the negative feedback GT6 has got from the fans on this forum speaks louder than any potential law suit ever could. And the best part is; it don't cost us anything.


👍

 

[Jose Mendonca]

I don't think this was a reply to me? I mentioned nothing about the cost of the item...?

I'm not saying don't complain, I'm just saying you have no legal grounds to sue

You're right, it was the post above yours by Haitauer, #32 Sorry about that.

 

[Famine]

IMO you have a serious problem in saying yes to "Do you think there are totally fair with us, respectful, transparent ???"
If I create a company I would like to have only customers as you .

The game is exactly as described and I have 3 of the 8 promised "future updates" - that had no deadline scheduled - within the first 4 months of the product's life.

So they told me everything that would be in the game a month before it came out. That's transparency. What they said is what I got. That's fairness. Despite not giving a deadline for features in "future updates", I've got nearly half of them already. That's respectful.


What I don't have is some features never promised by them, but teased by employees of another (albeit connected) company, within the time period those employees stated. That's not PD's fault, though it may be indicative of a problem elsewhere.

There is still absolutely zero reason for any kind of legal recourse against the developers (PD) or publishers (SCE), at least for UK purchasers (other territories' websites may make different claims). If you were mis-sold the product it was by claims made by retailers and you have grounds for a full refund from them.

 

[Haitauer]

I think people are not compairing the game to the actual advertising but to their own expectations instead. So maybe one could sue them self for too big hopes and dreams.

If we compare the quality of GT6 to the "quality" of many other games, there should be a lot of legal complains going around.

Please do express your dissatisfaction to this game or to actions of PD, but please just keep the comments in proportion and sane. Constructive criticism works always better than accusations and threats.

 

[LVracerGT]

You know what would get PD's attention rather quickly? If @Jordan actually asked Kaz pressing questions and demanded answers for this community:

- Why have helpful features from GT5 been removed (or slowly added back)?

- Why is the camber adjustment in the suspension model STILL broken and not been updated to work properly?

- Why has the pit stop tire gliltch STILL not been addressed?

- Why have we STILL not received the teased track due for release back in February?

- Why haven't we received the major "promised features" such as the track maker, gps course maker, community features etc.

- Why is the online so unstable (even compared to GT5) and why hasn't PD done anything to address the issues plaguing online racing.

It's about time Kaz answers some tough questions without the run around answers that have become the norm from Sony/PD.

 

[TurismoBad]

Law is one thing and life is another. Otherwise all cases would be automatically resolved without a trial.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Get some PSN friends and get online. It's not that hard people, the game is fun online.

Agreed.

 

[ryzno]

[quote="Dodzzz, post: 9612274, member: 7696]
Remember, this is only a 60 dollars Gran Turismo game![/quote]
Remember when we got complete GT games for $40?




Anyways I think we have a chance, but as Famine said, we have to wait till December for the "promises" not being met.

Remember, AT&T had to return a prtion of customers money, for falsely advertizing internet speeds.

I dont remember if it was Reebok or Skechers, but they claimed their shoes "toned" the legs and butt. They had to pay full refunds, cause they had no scientific proof that they did "tone" anything.

So keep your hopes up!

PS: Im not for, sueing for a full refund. But a portion back(I have no intention of returning my game). I feel free DLC for the life of the game is a reasonable offer instead of a refund.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

I am a bit disappointed that we have not gotten some of the features they mentioned especially the community features which were said to be coming in Jan. I am also disappointed that we did not get the track that was to come in Feb and that we have not gotten 1 or 2 more VGT cars as well as no DLC tracks yet when they indicated we would possibly get 1 each month.

That said it was only a $60 game and I was playing it every day for the first 2-3 months and enjoying it so I more than got my moneys worth out of it already.

I am still looking forward to the next updates, especially the track creator but what I would really like to see is some serious info from PD as to some time frame on the advertised content and DLC

 

[Samus]

You know what would get PD's attention rather quicly? If @Jordan actually asked Kaz pressing questions and demanded answers for this community:

- Why have helpful features from GT5 been removed (or slowly added back)?

- Why is the camber adjustment in the suspension model STILL broken and not been updated to work properly?

- Why has the pit stop tire gliltch STILL not been addressed?

- Why have we STILL not received the teased track due for release back in February?

- Why haven't we received the major "promised features" such as the track maker, gps course maker, community features etc.

- Why is the online so unstable (even compared to GT5) and why hasn't PD done anything to address the issues plaguing online racing.

It's about time Kaz answers some tough questions without the run around answers that have become the norm from Sony/PD.

I'd certainly like to hear some answers from him soon. He's essentially said nothing about his game since January and hasn't said what he thinks of the reception to his game at all, to my knowledge.

 

[lancia delta hf]

The agreed time limit.

Unfortunately, SCEE gave us none and we bought the game anyway. The agreed time limit is, thus the lifetime of the game.If you don't give a time limit and I agree to it, yes. If not and we can't come to an agreement, I can reject the car for a full refund based on a pre-existing fault. SOGA!

SOGA also gives you recourse here - if the product does not match with what the retailer says, you may return the item for a full refund based on it not being fit for purpose. However, you only have six months to do this from purchase (SOGA gives further protection in the case of faulty goods).Indeed. The booklet - being inside a sealed box that you couldn't access until after purchase - can only be regarded as supporting material, not advertising material. The presence of the description and, as you say, the tab in the game indicates a feature that was very latterly removed (presumably between mid September and early December, after the master was sent for duplication and during the v1.01 development) for reasons unknown.

But SCEE never advertised the feature as being present (to my knowledge - I should check the Wayback Machine, but I don't recall it from any press releases), only as available for a future update.Then it ought to be clear that what appears on the SCEE website, UK version, is what we actually have - though those of us with internet-enabled consoles and the time to download things now have 37.5% of the "future update" features.Heh, that's the truth.I don't know what the "empty promises" are. As I've said, they've released 37.5% of the "future update" features in the last 4 months - if they keep that rate up, we'll have them all before December 2014 - despite not giving any kind of schedule. The Vision GT schedule - as @Jose Mendonca mentioned - seems a bit awry (though this may depend on vehicle manufacturers, making any delay a Matter Beyond Our Reasonable Control [MBORC] for PD/SCEI) but they did originally say it would be "Over the course of approximately 1 year" and we're not there yet.

A couple of things have been teased by SCE sources (mainly SCEA) - like Zahara - and it's not unreasonable to expect people to be annoyed that an official source says something will be with us in February and for it not to be here yet in nearly-May but, as far as I'm aware, this information has never been corroborated by official press releases or website updates. I've been saying since the days of GT4 that until there is an official statement from SCE, it's not real - even if we at GTPlanet say it or if an SCE source of some kind says it.There aren't any.

PD removed the distinction of Premium and Standard cars - this was announced by SCE well before release - and is actually fairly reasonable given that there's now four(ish) levels of cars, which I term Standard, Enhanced Standard, Premium and GT6. Standard cars are their lovely, blocky selves. Enhanced Standards have updated body models but retain Simplified interiors. Premium cars are the new-to-GT5 models with Detailed interiors (except those cars that have no interior to detail!) and GT6 cars use adaptive tessellation to put them above Premium quality.

However, on the official website they do say:I'm not familiar with this. As far as I'm aware it was always a feature for the future - though I suppose the existence of the feature in GT5 might have made people think it was in the game from the start. We covered it in November, four weeks before launch, when it was confirmed as coming in a future update - with the GPS Course Maker to follow in a second update.

The thing is if anyone tried to make a claim thn im sure a laywer would use the bigger picture as an angle and not just use the fact that those features can still come in updates, This is the games industry and anyone with knowlege of it will know most gamers play games for only a few weeks to a few months so it is surely not good enough to just accept 1 or 2 years is the futer, Also i would make sure my laywer highlights the fact that PD's whole campaigne before release was based on pretty much everything that is still not in the game and clearly that is the reason other people aswell as myself bought the game based off and going back to what i said about games having a few weeks shelf life for the majority of people i'd say its more than reasonable to assume i would be wating no more than 4 - 8 weeks for those feature to arrive.

Now when you consider PD spent months wetting our appetites with these features then only shortly before release they stick "not available on launch" alongside them and its nearly 6 months since release then surely a judge may decide that we were delibarately misslead and may not act favourably in PD's direction especially when its point out that GT5 after 4 years still does not have promissed features that are on the box so could easily rule that PD are as shoddy as i now percieve them to be, PD have had the last penny out of me as i just dont believe they are interested in what the customers wants or keeping them happy,

I was always of the oppinion that i hope PD come good and make the best game ever but now i hope they crash and burn and the GT series will be history, Their lack of respect and treatment of customers is such that there is no way i would support these guys to succeed and await the day they have egg on their face, Some gt fans are right you know, Kaz is an artist, A con artist!

Remember, this is only a 60 dollars Gran Turismo game! wake up man!

I paid £60 not $60 and the price is besides the point, People have been taken for a ride and pd nned to be held accountable, Plus i have had little fun out of that £60 investment due to pd only focusing on content and not the player enjoyment.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

I'd certainly like to hear some answers from him soon. He's essentially said nothing about his game since January and hasn't said what he thinks of the reception to his game at all, to my knowledge.

I agree. He is certainly not like the Devs from NASCAR 2014. Those guys are very active in their forums and have even been known to race with their fans online. Same goes for Forza. Not Kaz though, its as if he puts himself on some untouchable pedestal or something. Its like he just goes into hiding and when he does come out and is confronted with questions, he sidesteps them like a U.S. congressman. I've got to say, I really hate his style. I'm not really worried about the content, or lack thereof, or the speed of the updates of some of the features....the thing that really pisses me off more than anything is Kaz's attitude towards the ones that are filling his very pockets with money and his unwillingness to communicate with them. To me, that is very insulting. I mean, we buy your product, the least you could do is communicate with us and let your fans know whats going on. Maybe some roadblocks have been hit or there may be some technical issues somewhere, I think communication of such issues would go a long way in tempering a lot of unrest that seems to be at an all-time high here in the forums and elsewhere. I think that the more people are communicated with and kept in the loop as far as what is really going on, the more the expectations are kept at a lower level and we don't end up having what we have in this and other threads....people upset, wanting to sue, boycott the game, and so on. I honestly think that if we knew what was going on and why some of the things aren't in the game yet, we wouldn't have as many complaint/hate threads. A little communication goes along ways.....I'm looking at you Kazunori.

 

[Famine]

The thing is if anyone tried to make a claim thn im sure a laywer would use the bigger picture as an angle and not just use the fact that those features can still come in updates

I'll tell you the exact process a lawyer will follow.

1. Take your money (or give you your half hour free).
2. Laugh (or if it's a free half hour, tell you to get out).

If you think the figurehead of a games development company is a con artist for not yet meeting open-ended target deadlines set by a marketing company he's not part of and never officially confirmed statements from their employees, I can't wait until you experience what utter shysters lawyers can be. Nevertheless, I wish you the very best of fortune instructing your lawyer in your endeavour to get £60 back from PD.


Incidentally, so you aim your enquiries a little bit better in the future:
Polyphony Digital (PD) = Game development company; They develop games
Sony Computer Entertainment Inc (SCE/SCEI) = Game publishing company; They publish games
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe/America (SCEE/SCEA)* = Game marketing company; They market games

PD didn't have a campaign, SCEE/SCEA did. PD didn't whet your appetite, SCEE/SCEA did. PD didn't take your money, SCEE/SCEA did (PD's budget comes not directly from games sales, but from SCE's financing).

If you feel you have been misled as to what's in the game, your quarrel is with the game retailer. If you feel that the retailer was misled as to what's in the game, the retailer's quarrel is with SCEE/SCEA. If you feel that the game isn't good enough, your quarrel is with PD.


*And other local SCE subsidiaries

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

Yeah a law suit filed on behalf of a single person for a $60 game is nonsense. If the grounds were present for a class action suit on behalf of all those who purchased GT6 then something could come of it but the end result in these things is generally, the lawyer gets rich(er) the cosumers get 10 cents on the dollar or something to that effect and the company struggles to stay in business. If they survive they may change their practice but at what cost?

 

[ironman44321]

Are we...are we really doing this? This website hurts sometimes.

 

[Davoxx]

I think nobody is going to sue PD as a individual but probably as a Consumer Group , the bigger the consumer group is ( US ) the more chance we have to win !!!!!

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

I think nobody is going to sue PD as a individual but probably as a Consumer Group , the bigger the consumer group is ( US ) the more chance we have to win !!!!!

The only winners in such cases are the lawyers.

 

[Davoxx]

The only winners in such cases are the lawyers.

Yep probably but they will get the money from PD and not from us ( I mean a percentage of the compensation if there is one ).

 

[VBR]

Yeah a law suit filed on behalf of a single person for a $60 game is nonsense. If the grounds were present for a class action suit on behalf of all those who purchased GT6 then something could come of it but the end result in these things is generally, the lawyer gets rich(er) the cosumers get 10 cents on the dollar or something to that effect and the company struggles to stay in business. If they survive they may change their practice but at what cost?

Unless...there's an out of work lawyer who's also a GT Planet member, feels ripped off himself, & fancies representing a group of his fellow GTP'ers pro bono. Anyone?

💡

 

[ironman44321]

Yep probably but they will get the money from PD and not from us ( I mean a percentage of the compensation if there is one ).

Nope not even that. There is 0 chance a class action suite would be successful as Famine keeps pointing out.

you bought a game knowing that things were going to be added in later and you knew that those features were not given release dates. Your expectations are your own and do not represent an obligation on the part of Sony or PD.

#hashtagdealwithit

 

[sparkytooth]

Unless...there's an out of work lawyer who's also a GT Planet member, feels ripped off himself, & fancies representing a group of his fellow GTP'ers pro bono. Anyone?

💡

Not even like that you guys have grounds. Famine already hit the nail on the head with the issue and I'm pretty sure we've regularly gotten updates since GT6 was released, atleast once a month. And with new features sometimes.

 

[novcze]

Don't buy product if you are not satisfied with its state, don't trust promises, simple. I didn't buy GT6 and many others didn't buy it and bad sales is something what sends message.

 

[NFSCARBON1]

My UK release GT6 box has pretty much no information on it regarding what is or isn't in the game. Compared to GT5 the back cover appears empty and unfinished.
However there is one small feature highlighted that is not in the game and could be construed as deceptive and misleading.

PLAYSTATION(r)
NETWORK
.Create your own clubs and thrilling 16 player races.

Now I'm not going to sue them over it, but where can I create a club in GT6? There's not even a web based system like crews in GTAV. There is not a declaration that some features are not available at release or that they are subject to change, so to me that is false advertising, albeit it's a small feature.