Originally Posted by Evostance
It means unplayable or not satisfactory.
Ie. If you can't get online like in BC2, then that it unsatisfactory and should be deemed a refund.
If your playing COD:BO and there happens to be a bug where you can't smash a window which isn't stopping you progressing and is a minor flaw, you shouldnt be able to refund that
It depends on what's causing the online issues though. When BC2 first launched there were a lot of issues with the EA servers, however that's not due to the game its due to EA basically messing everything up on their end.
Same goes for APB, they went out of business and the servers shut down - private servers work fine though and so does the game to an extent.
Another issue is if its just one person who cant get online then its unlikely that its the game and they shouldn't get a refund, its only if its absolutely everyone and the developer has no intention of fixing the issue that I feel people should be given a refund.
In my opinion the line between a broken game and a working one is a rather ill defined one. There are so many different issues that a game could have - the singleplayer might not work but multi does, does that entitle a refund or not? How about the other way around?
This may be a good thing in that developers might be a little more careful but I'm doubting they'll do that much and people would be more likely to abuse the right than be honest. I'd also go as far to say that this might strengthen the console market too, its easier to make a game work on 1 console rather than the 1000's of PC configs there are.
I did too, but since 2007/2008 basically everything has got more expensive. Games have just followed that trend. That said, they usually go on offer somewhere so I can pick up most of the games I want for a rather low price which is a good thing.