Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
El autor de este tema ha marcado una publicación como la respuesta a su pregunta.
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
It's still how some laws work in some places of the world.
I could cite how things work wrt liability for defective products in the EU, for instance.
There the trader - i.e. the party you bought from - is liable for defects and responsible to get them fixed or resolved, even if they have no recourse to actually do so directly. Sounds strange, maybe. In particular to Americans who are used to having to sort things out with product manufacturers under warranty programs instead.
The EU though simply made the traders responsible to sort things out with the manufacturers, i.e. with the trader's suppliers, on the consumer's behalf. So the consumer only has to focus on one single point of contact: the trader, and save themselves a lot of hassle and run-around. (Admittedly, this works better for physical purchases because there the trader is a brick-n-mortar shop that can't hide behind the big long-distance wall of the internet.)
Anyway; that's just one such example.
And actually - yes; in the EU it would also be illegal to cut an announced sale short. That's officially classified as a misleading business practice, afaik.
But again; as has already been stated: the point is moot, because while the event ended earlier, the actual sale did run on to the 15th. So no foul. At all.
Then you don't have a problem.
You're free to your opinion. And any time a publisher does something you think Valve is responsible for, you can try your luck in civil court and see how well your opinions hold up.
If you're right, you can gloat as loud as you want. And if you're wrong, well, we'll never hear from you again.
That's right, I don't have a problem, as stated above. It's you who can't let it go, not me. How a rather straightforward complaint (wrong as it was, though right in principal) turned into people laughing it off by mockingly saying I should try suing them rather than simply recognising the basic contract law implications is beyond me.
Thanks for actually thinking this through (and recognising that I admitted that I was wrong). It's just odd when people adopt a "this is just the way it is here" mindset, even at the expense of consumer rights.
Note that even in the US a retailer can't simply defer you to the manufacturer if they sold a defective product, though yes at some point rather soon after sale their liability ceases and so your only remedy is through the manufacturer/warranty.
They can neither set, extend, reduce or adjust ANY aspect of a sale. So if you "did" end up having an issue with a sale ending early (unlikely as that is, due to how they are set up) your remedy would STILL have to be through the publisher who set that date. And thats even assuming there were laws requiring that said dates be honored. There are all sorts of reasons sales end early even in brick and mortar stores. "While supplies last" is a common caveat for example
Which would be irrelevant for commercial activities under a legal framework where by law the trader is defined to be liable for such things regardless.
And Steam actually is the trader. They do not simply facilitate the transaction as a broker; marketplace; or other form of intermediate platform. This is evident from the fact that on your receipts of purchase, which you receive by e-mail, the contact information for the trader - which in various parts of the world is legally required to be there - is made out to be Steam's. Not the publisher's. Steam's.
You are confused about how a bricks and mortar store can cancel a sale and seemingly oblivious to basic contract law, where a sale is an implicit offer to contract (ie. there are indeed laws that regulate sales). "While supplies last" is a common caveat which must be explicitly stated, never mind that inventory is a rather obvious concern. So, if they have no inventory to sell, then they have inventory to sell. What they can't do, however, is simply cite "while supplies last" to decline a sale price purchase when they indeed have supplies. They can publish a retraction, but they do need to publish it. "We are just the marketplace" has been a failed anti-liability claim time and time again. Again, I've listed numerous marketplace companies that manage to keep their vendors in check, why on Earth do you suppose that Steam can't/shouldn't? "They can neither set, extend, reduce or adjust ANY aspect of a sale" This may be so, but there is no reason why they can't/shouldn't hold their vendors accountable, especially when Steam is arguably ultimately liable. Again, all of this is moot because the sale did last until the stated date, and so, presumably, Steam does hold their vendors accountable.
Doesn't seem to be a problem on any other platform, though.
was on 65% discount
from 2022-08-08 10:00:00 PST
to 2022-08-15 10:00:00 PST
this can be confirmed and deducted by SteamDB/ITAD/ggdeals and other 3rd party services that observe Steam constantly.
OP will certainly find out, after deep self-analysis, what they got or did wrong but here the general gist: the timing of this thread is evident to that OP assumed the sale would be on the entirety of their 15th of august
but why does OP state it ended 12th august?
easy, that was the last time they recall checking the store page. if they would have checked later, they might have not found an end date, but a countdown. last 48 hours of a discount are a countdown.
ex:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/788100/Neon_Abyss/
advertised to be on sale until 22nd
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1195290/Moncage/
ups.
and i would like to mention that the rest of this discussion is irrelevant to this issue in general as a partner can not modify a live discount (which evidently did not happen to begin with).
If you read the thread, you will see that all of this was covered already. Yes, I was wrong. Sale said it was good until the 15th, no time listed so I assumed end of day (no sale end time listed being a sticking point for a Steam noob). I also readily admitted that a listed end date need not be inclusive, so ending any time that day (including midnight AM) is fine. I see that Steam has a 10AM PST end date in general, odd, but perfectly OK. The actual end date is difficult to discern on Steam itself, but yes, as already mentioned, SteamDB makes it clear that the sale ended 10AM PST on the 15th. And yes, not much else to discuss were it not for prodding replies.
Doesn't seem to be a problem on Steam either. OP has repeatedly said that he was wrong and the sale did end at the correct day. He just assumed it was going to be all day on the 1t5th, when it wasn't.
Both you and Rio WISHING the law worked a certain way doesn't support the fact.
And you should have no trouble providing the caselaw since you explicitly mention how it has ""We are just the marketplace" has been a failed anti-liability claim time and time again".
The simple fact is in the US and Canada (and as far as I could find, the EU and the UK) a sale length is NOT contractually enforced. It can be ended early with no legal penalty and any remedy given is a customer service gesture.
Because that's not how the EU works. :P
Not even the United Nations could pull that off. :P
Don't put words in my mouth.
The main point I made is that if laws exist that hold the trader liable to a sales period their store announced, then that would simply be the law regardless of whether it's the trader themselves who set the period for the sale or whatever third party they outsourced that responsibility to. Liability is neither tied to cause nor responsibility.
When I gave the example of how the EU handles defective products, that was meant as a case example of that principle - i.e. the principle that laws can make traders legally liable for something even when traders have no direct responsibility or ownership for or over it.
Of course they can't force companies to have sales. They could however, legally force companies to be held to their own invitations to purchase. That's what a sales announcement is: an explicit timed invitation to purchase at a set price.
I did mention that ending a sales period early unannounced, i.e. without formally retracting the invitation, could be classified as a misleading commercial practice. So I owe you an explanation for that one.
The EU has the concept of 'misleading business-to-consumer commercial practices' and in general, any practice that using false pretenses could reasonably push a consumer towards a purchase they would otherwise not have made, can be judged as a misleading commercial practice - if there are reasonable arguments to do so.
The relevant directive that specifies this calls out a non-exhaustive list of examples in its annexes too.
Among those is the classic bait-and-switch. An invitation to purchase at a specified price running up to a due date, and then not honoring the price such that they can capitalize on the opportunity to try and sell the consumer another tougher to sell; more expensive; etc. product instead.
Since the EU revised their consumer rights directives back in 2019 with several enhancements, an official guidance document on how certain things interconnect back with this directive on misleading practices motivates that also trying to sell the same product at a higher price could be construed as a bait and switch.
And that's why ending a sale early, unannounced - and trying to sell the product at its original price again counter to the earlier invitation to purchase at a lower price, could be construed as a misleading commercial practice.
There is absolutely no problem if you actually formally retract the invitation to purchase though. Which in an environment for digital long-distance sales is of course stupid easy. It just requires a small banner that states you made an error and your sale was supposed to end on X; not on Y. And that's it.
Because there is no 'long journey to the store.' You just open the storefront page; read the notice that the sales period had a boo-boo. And that's that.
All of this has of course much more relevance wrt on-premise sales in a brick and mortar store, which involves more effort on part of consumers to actually visit and as such there's a requirement for that formal rejection notice to be communicated properly - i.e. in advance, rather than at the physical store.
(As an aside not aimed at anyone directly: Do people just love to rip on the EU for the sake of it, or what? Those ready to criticize should really learn a bit about how these things were meant to work first...)