Vita, false advertising, refunds by order of FTC in USA

[Scott_Arm]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/11/25/7282381/playstation-vita-settlement-false-advertising-ftc

Looks like if you bought a Vita before a certain date you're entitled to some money.

 

[goonergaz]

As a launch UK buyer it would have been nice to get something from Sony for my £230 outlay...even if it were just 1 yr PS+!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

As a launch UK buyer it would have been nice to get something from Sony for my £230 outlay...even if it were just 1 yr PS+!

"Sony claimed, for example, that PS Vita users could pause any PS3 game at any time and continue to play the game on their PS Vita from where they left off,"

Was this claim made in the UK? I don't remember any claims made about remote play.

 

[goonergaz]

Was this claim made in the UK? I don't remember any claims made about remote play.

Even if they did I doubt we'd get the same thing happen here.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Even if they did I doubt we'd get the same thing happen here.

Probably not. It would for the ASA to investigate and penalise Sony. I don't know if there remit includes forcing Sony to recompense purchasers - I can't think of any examples where this has happened. Of course if you feel strongly you could take Sony to the small claims court. I doubt they'd even show up, you'd likely win by default.

 

[goonergaz]

I'm only upset at the cost at launch and that Game didn't do any good deals. TBH, like I said, considering how much of a mess Vita has been - as a day one owner it would have been nice if Sony had said thanks in some way.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yeah I also bought my Vita from GAME. I bought Uncharted on card (the game on a card I have for the Vita) and they were disappointed I was not going to buy an extortionately priced 4Gb memory card from them - I'd already preordered a 16Gb card from Amazon which arrived later that day.

I am actually very happy with my Vita. It's often my window to the PS4

 

[Sigfried1977]

I'm only upset at the cost at launch and that Game didn't do any good deals. TBH, like I said, considering how much of a mess Vita has been - as a day one owner it would have been nice if Sony had said thanks in some way.

"We're sorry about the millions of people who, unlike you, didn't buy our very reasonably priced high-end handheld despite a pretty terrific launch lineup. Here's 50 quid." - Nah, as a launch Vita owner myself, I really don't feel like Sony owes me a thing here.

 

[Simon F]

'Twas worth it just for LBP and Tearaway alone

 

[London Geezer]

Not that I ever support the double standards of the legal system, but in this case if Sony did advertise certain features that ultimately didn't work, then there is a case there. The problem is that, especially in the gaming industry, publishers tread on the 'false advertising' line very, very often. The line is quite blurred as it is.
To be honest, at one point I did feel that I should get some of my money back from Driveclub for the features that, to this day, simply do not work - I have never been able to get into multiplayer. But I love the parts of the game I can access anyway so my personal stance is to simply suck it up. Then they said I could have whatever DLC they just released for free - haven't tried it yet - so at least they're making an effort.

 

[Pressure]

Just look up the whole snafu with the PS3 and its ability to run Linux. People in Europe were entitled to a partial refund for the said feature they removed.

 

[tuna]

Regarding otherOS/linux, I have not seen a definite case where someone got a refund.

 

[Sigfried1977]

You can play Blazblue multiplayer via 3G network, so having multi player matches over 3G was not false advertising as far as I'm concerned. Supposedly it even worked quite well too.