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

[Brock5000]

It's not about the money.

It's about sending a message.

And what sort of a message do you think it might send? That Playstation owners are a bunch of spoilt brats with an over-inflated sense of entitlement? Surely not!!!

 

[PletdeKoe]

Don't forget the compensation for emotional damage! After playing Gt6 I fell into a depression. I also have an irrational fear for buying new games. I don't trust any new product!

I want my 60 euro's back plus compensation for the emotional damage of, let's say: One MILLION dollars! Hahahahaah hahahahaah hahahaha haha ha.


Ps. If it is about sending a message, maybe you should send a massage, instead of creating another useless thread.......

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

So with the box in my hand (NTSC territory, 15th Anniversary Edition), here's what my box says:

- Unlock your racing passion with 1200+ cars on 70+ circuit layouts.

- Drive future Automotive designed concept vehicles with Vision Gran Turismo

- Access and create online events with web based enabled devices

And as far as I can tell:

- All 1200+ cars and 70+ circuit layouts are there

- Vision Gt cars are there, granted only two of them at the moment and both are from Mercedes but they are there.

- Haven't seen this quite yet.



So as far as I can tell, two out of three promised things are there so I don't exactly see anything worth suing for.

Yes mine says the same but look at the small print at the top right above the red line. That is where the other stuff is listed.

 

[RACECAR]

Yes mine says the same but look at the small print at the top right above the red line. That is where the other stuff is listed.

Basically, the exact same stuff as advertised on the GT5 box.

I think someone at Sony (SCEA perhaps) got abit lazy there and clearly didn't get the memo about PD NOT doing the Gameplay recording/Upload stuff.

 

[Akira AC]

Standard US edition here (BCUS-98296), a few things that saw:

-"Gameplay Recording and Upload"
-"Lobbies/Matchmaking"
*"Access and create online events with web based enabled devices"

As interesting as the discussion turned out to be (actually led me to do some research in which basis a game is or software is deemed returnable) and while the US regions might have a vague case (TBH an impossible case) it's a rather childish outcry than a real "case".

The game from a technical standpoint is also functional, so there is not enough basis to redeem the game unplayable to have a refund for it, here I'm wondering what would happen to software as faulty as this one, which funnily enough complies with what is advertised in the box (apart from being generally utter crap).

 

[MrGrado]

Hi all, like many others I'm really disappointed by all the content which was promised and then never delivered. I'm wondering if anyone here with legal knowledge or experience reckons if we have cause to claim a refund for a product that isn't as described? Perhaps a class action of some sort?

Hmmm... Try ask in some law forums. Someone with GT6 knowledge or experience might be able to help.

 

[Griffith500]

I, too, echo kudos to you for your massive patience in exploring and answering the OP's quest/wish/rant. But from a different angle: How about all those who've had their PS3s bite the dust from this game? Does any "not responsible for unintended damages from any specific use" language cover the developer or publisher from fault here?

Between new lasers and whole new PS3s for those too scared to ever think of opening their console, GT6 has GOT to hold some kind of record for console gremlin-making.

Good luck getting actual evidence for that, which is what you'd need to get a ruling in your favour (well you'd need it to get to the courts in the first place). Every game, practically, has had people complain it "killed their console"; if there seem to be more for GT, that might just be because it sold more than most games, or maybe just confirmation bias.

I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying you need to step up a bit from anecdotal evidence filtered through prejudice. Just saying that the console died while playing a particular game and automatically attributing the death to that one game (and not, say, the whole lifetime of the console) is borderline superstitious.

 

[RC45]

You want to file a legal case for a $60 game you didn't like?

The fact that Sony/PD etal pocket oodles of money by peddling vapourware is the point here. Your $60, my $60, that guys $60... it all adds up.

 

[cjr3559]

I'm going to go against the grain here, but I'm definitely getting my money's worth. Picked up the game on day 1 and have played it just about every day. My last stat check said 159 hours of driving time, so that equals around 44 cents per hour (U.S.) at the time of this post. Pretty cheap entertainment. And that doesn't include photo mode, using the data logger, etc.

EDIT:

Just checked my latest stats. 252.1 hours of driving. That's 27 cents per driving hour since my last stat check a month ago.

 

[Fanapryde]

I'm going to go against the grain here, but I'm definitely getting my money's worth. Picked up the game on day 1 and have played it just about every day. My last stat check said 159 hours of driving time, so that equals around 44 cents per hour (U.S.) at the time of this post. Pretty cheap entertainment. And that doesn't include photo mode, using the data logger, etc.

EDIT:

Just checked my latest stats. 252.1 hours of driving. That's 27 cents per driving hour since my last stat check a month ago.

You beat me to it.
Over 350 hours, so even cheaper per driving hour

I do agree we still need A LOT of all the promised features, but hey, it's still worth the money...

 

[VBR]

@ccaranna & @Fanapryde - That's a really nice way of looking at it. However, many of the hours I've spent in GT6 were not really enjoyable, especially having to endure a certain amount of Career Mode (aka Torture Mode) to be able to unlock online.

 

[F1NK]

It appears to me that PD are working on another title and probably have done for some time but were forced to release GT6 on the PS3 rather than hold off for it to be released on the PS4. We have had nowhere near the amount of promised DLC since it came out and hardly heard anything from Kaz himself while parts of the game clearly need addressing.

So for me, I'm not expecting much else on the GT6 side of things and have barely played recently and shall just wait and see what the next instalment brings on the PS4. It better be mind blowing, that's all I'm saying.

 

[HKS racer]

How have you determined they "never arrived"? They simply haven't arrived yet. With no time period given until they arrive, by future update, we can only say they "never arrived" when it is no longer possible for them to arrive.

And here is the point. They can't hide under this unkown unquantified time forever, after a year every lawyer could bring them to court. The question would be very simple "So, PD/Sony where is this future update you promised, after a year from release?".
In case the Judge want to save PD/Sony you can always go for an appeal, the more time with no "future update" will pass the higher the chances to win the appeal.

It appears to me that PD are working on another title and probably have done for some time but were forced to release GT6 on the PS3 rather than hold off for it to be released on the PS4. We have had nowhere near the amount of promised DLC since it came out and hardly heard anything from Kaz himself while parts of the game clearly need addressing.

That's not a justification, it's more an aggravating thing on how bad Sony (pubblisher) and PD (developer) are organized.

 

[Famine]

And here is the point. They can't hide under this unkown unquantified time forever

Why not?

The only time they're in breach is if the game hasn't had the updates by the time online support is canned - though there may be a case for complaint if the online features are not brought significantly before this time.

after a year every lawyer could bring them to court. The question would be very simple "So, PD/Sony where is this future update you promised, after a year from release?".

While I'm sure there'd be many lawyers prepared to take your money, Sony's will say "Wait... where did we say the future update(s) would be with you within a year? Also, you've had SIX updates in FOUR months and they've brought you 37.5% of the promised features".

*bang* Case dismissed.

In case the Judge want to save PD/Sony you can always go for an appeal, the more time with no "future update" will pass the higher the chances to win the appeal.

And the instant an update comes out with whatever feature you deem most important to you, you lose and your money spent on lawyers and appeals is wasted.

You weren't given a set schedule and if you chose to buy the game knowing this you can't complain that the schedule they didn't set doesn't match whatever you've dreamed up. You're defining "reasonable" as "12 months". That's up to you, but Sony are not beholden to act on what you define as "reasonable".

 

[HKS racer]

Why not?

The only time they're in breach is if the game hasn't had the updates by the time online support is canned - though there may be a case for complaint if the online features are not brought significantly before this time.

Because they still used these features that will come as a "future update" as a marketing boost for the day one version. And this, like it or not, can be easily be classified as false advertising.
Talk with any lawyer not paid by Sony, there is surely room for a class action sort of thing.
And eventually there's no need to go in an American court since they sold GT6 all around the World I would choose the country who statistically better defends consumer rights.

While I'm sure there'd be many lawyers prepared to take your money, Sony's will say "Wait... where did we say the future update(s) would be with you within a year? Also, you've had SIX updates in FOUR months and they've brought you 37.5% of the promised features".

*bang* Case dismissed.And the instant an update comes out with whatever feature you deem most important to you, you lose and your money spent on lawyers and appeals is wasted.

You weren't given a set schedule and if you chose to buy the game knowing this you can't complain that the schedule they didn't set doesn't match whatever you've dreamed up. You're defining "reasonable" as "12 months". That's up to you, but Sony are not beholden to act on what you define as "reasonable".

That's your opinion and your vision as a potential Sony advocate (and I understand you since you have an aggregate GT related business) but you will not be the Judge. If I were in a position to accuse first of all I would make a nice DVD with ALL the marketing bluff about all those unexistant features (well documented by this site without going too far) showing they didn't bring enough material to backup the PR martketing campaign. At that point the court will decide if that's enough to save Sony/PD.
I would also compare this behaviour to EA, underlining the similarities with a company named ‘Worst Company in America’ two years in a row.

One last thing, as you know, it's your interest that Sony/PD bring the best product possible, meaning more people on a positive vibe therefore more people interested on aggregate products like GT Pedia.

 

[Falcon787B]

Wow...I'm stunned that this thread is even a thing.

I myself have not bought Gran Turismo 6. Why? I read online and asked around other people who have bought it, and found out certain features I enjoy (mainly endurance races and used car lots) are not in the game. The new stuff they put in wasn't quite enough for me to pay full price, so I didn't. One day I may get it discounted.

GRID 2 I pre-ordered and got on opening day on the premise that Indycars and other new features would be awesome. Turns out what I bought was a lame Need for Speed wannabe which was a terrible game, and the final insult being that Indycars was paid, release-day DLC - which as far as I'm concerned is the worst way of screwing over your own fanbase. So much so that Codemasters have actually apologised to the fans about this in the blog post revealing GRID Autosport.

What did I do though? I didn't whine and threaten to 'sue' Codies - I just traded it in, and basically got full-price money back/credits to spend in-store back. I hadn't realised the content was there, and if I'd known beforehand that GRID 2 featured a bunch of rubbish street racing I wouldn't have touched it. Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me.

My point is, do your research beforehand - do not be a blind fanboy who goes OMG THIS IS GONNA BE AMAZING AAAH MUST BUY IT STRAIGHT AWAY AAHHH and then feel all betrayed and want to 'sue' PD because the game didn't live up to your lofty standards. I've played every single GT up until 5, but haven't touched 6 yet as it doesn't appeal as much to me. That's my choice, I wouldn't bitch about anyone else playing it or enjoying it, their choice.

 

[Famine]

Because they still used these features that will come as a "future update" as a marketing boost for the day one version. And this, like it or not, can be easily be classified as false advertising.

How? How is it false to say that "these things aren't in the game but they will be in the future" when they aren't in the game but will be in the future?

It'll only be able to be proven as false if they do not materialise.

Talk with any lawyer not paid by Sony, there is surely room for a class action sort of thing.

Of course there is - that's how lawyers get paid.

And eventually there's no need to go in an American court since they sold GT6 all around the World I would choose the country who statistically better defends consumer rights.

Try the UK - SOGA is a tool just for this purpose.

Though you'll be suing the vendor, not the manufacturer.

That's your opinion and your vision as a potential Sony advocate (and I understand you since you have an aggregate GT related business)

I'm nothing of the sort. If you think otherwise, try reading this post.

If I were in a position to accuse first of all I would make a nice DVD with ALL the marketing bluff about all those unexistant features (well documented by this site without going too far) showing they didn't bring enough material to backup the PR martketing campaign. At that point the court will decide if that's enough to save Sony/PD.
I would also compare this behaviour to EA, underlining the similarities with a company named ‘Worst Company in America’ two years in a row.

Then stop vacillating and do it. Go get a lawyer, sue whomever you wish to sue and prove yourself right and me wrong.

You might like to get your companies' roles right for your lawyer and have deep pockets though - shyster lawyers will take on any case they can regardless of any chance of success if someone's gullible enough to pay them for it.

One last thing, as you know, it's your interest that Sony/PD bring the best product possible, meaning more people on a positive vibe therefore more people interested on aggregate products like GT Pedia.

It's neither here nor there to us, really. GT1-5 haven't been the best products possible and GT6 isn't either, but we still seem to survive as a site. More of our long term members stick around for anything but racing games and those that have moved to different ones find homes in our FM and AC forums.

 

[JHB434]

Get my money back over a video game? Uh, no. I like all of us bought this unfinished. I made that choice. I usually buy a game after it's been out a while and proven, usually actually when the next version comes out so the price is down. I made an exception this time and paid the price. In a time when people buy Beta versions of games, electronics and other items that make false promises and never deliver (Anything by Apple for example.) we have accepted mediocrity in general and have no one but ourselves to blame.

I do however still consider the entertainment that I HAVE gotten from GT6 to be more than worth the money spent on it so that makes it a non issue for me. I continue to hope the promised features will show up and yes have pretty much given up on them and compared to past Gran Turismos pretty much lost interest a lot quicker then expected but still, I did this to myself. I made the choice.

I always said from day one the improved physics from undrivable with GT5 to driveable with GT6 was enough. The factor that sways my feelings is the fact that in comparison there is LESS of a game in GT6. And of course, principle itself.

So, no, I find this subject, as said above by another poster, people feeling rather entitled and typical of today's society. I will and do have a reaction and it's simple. I won't be buying GT7 even if I can buy a PS$/etc and do so. There really is not another game out there that has the feel of Gran Turismo and I will miss that but after GT6, UNLESS there is a sudden change, I will walk away.

 

[Falcon787B]

Get my money back over a video game? Uh, no. I like all of us bought this unfinished. I made that choice. I usually buy a game after it's been out a while and proven, usually actually when the next version comes out so the price is down. I made an exception this time and paid the price. In a time when people buy Beta versions of games, electronics and other items that make false promises and never deliver (Anything by Apple for example.) we have accepted mediocrity in general and have no one but ourselves to blame.

I do however still consider the entertainment that I HAVE gotten from GT6 to be more than worth the money spent on it so that makes it a non issue for me. I continue to hope the promised features will show up and yes have pretty much given up on them and compared to past Gran Turismos pretty much lost interest a lot quicker then expected but still, I did this to myself. I made the choice.

I always said from day one the improved physics from undrivable with GT5 to driveable with GT6 was enough. The factor that sways my feelings is the fact that in comparison there is LESS of a game in GT6. And of course, principle itself.

So, no, I find this subject, as said above by another poster, people feeling rather entitled and typical of today's society. I will and do have a reaction and it's simple. I won't be buying GT7 even if I can buy a PS$/etc and do so. There really is not another game out there that has the feel of Gran Turismo and I will miss that but after GT6, UNLESS there is a sudden change, I will walk away.

Amen. I avoided GT6 altogether because I don't like the argument that a shiny new physics engine (which I thought was good anyway) and advanced graphics (which were already great in GT games anyway) was an excuse to not fix basic issues (sound design still off, cars still sound rubbish, AI still not great) and take away gameplay features (endurance races, used car lots etc). Will I try GT7? If and when I have the spare £££ to get a PS4 (and I'm not paying stupid amounts of money for a console I'll only be able to play current-gen games on) then maybe, but it'll depend on features and whether Kaz has finally addressed the basic issues and stopped reinventing the wheel with every game.

But back on the original point - I wouldn't get butthurt and sue a games company over it.

 

[HKS racer]

How? How is it false to say that "these things aren't in the game but they will be in the future" when they aren't in the game but will be in the future?

The thing is they boosted the sales of x product (GT6) with y unexistant features that MUST come in a certain time, quantified by the laws of each country.
And the fact they used a well known brand as GT to play this borderline marketing trick is surely aggravating: if you and me create z unkown product promising what PD/Sony did we would not gain the same sales beneficts on D1 version as they did because we don't have the same brand awareness.

Though you'll be suing the vendor, not the manufacturer.I'm nothing of the sort. If you think otherwise, try reading this post.

I know you have NO responsability, maybe you misunderstood.

Then stop vacillating and do it. Go get a lawyer, sue whomever you wish to sue and prove yourself right and me wrong.

I didn't buy GT6 in the first place so as I said, I'm not in the position.

You might like to get your companies' roles right for your lawyer and have deep pockets though - shyster lawyers will take on any case they can regardless of any chance of success if someone's gullible enough to pay them for it.It's neither here nor there to us, really.

I know that, and I know how some lawyers can ea$ily change their mind when contacted by big Corporation$. But hey these kind of thing$ happen$ at all level$ of life it's not only a videogame industry related thing. Some people did won some class actions though.

 

[Famine]

The thing is they boosted the sales of x product (GT6) with y unexistant features that MUST come in a certain time, quantified by the laws of each country.

What is that certain time? I don't see one given by anyone involved with the game, so where is the defined time coming from? Where, in Italian law, is the minimum time period for a gaming company to include a promised future update in a game?

Suggesting they're not meeting the terms of their undefined timeframe is laughable because no timeframe was defined. You could choose to buy into their unpublished schedule or not and if you chose to you can hardly complain they aren't meeting it!

In any case, you can see that in four months of this undefined time, 37.5% of the promised features have gone from not being in the game to being in the game. They weren't there and now they are.

And the fact they used a well known brand as GT to play this borderline marketing trick is surely aggravating: if you and me create z unkown product promising what PD/Sony did we would not gain the same sales beneficts on D1 version as they did because we don't have the same brand awareness.

That sounds like you're saying they should be held to different standards because they're big and successful?

I know you have NO responsability, maybe you misunderstood.

You said I was "a potential Sony advocate", meaning I'd argue in Sony's favour. The post I link to shows me arguing against SCEA, showing I'm not a Sony advocate, potential or otherwise.

I know that, and I know how some lawyers can ea$ily change their mind when contacted by big Corporation$. But hey these kind of thing$ happen$ at all level$ of life it's not only a videogame industry related thing. Some people did won some class actions though.

It's relatively easy to win a class action lawsuit when a company wrongs a group of people. You have to demonstrate that you've been wronged.

"PD haven't given us all 8 of the promised future update features after 4 months of a never-stated update period" is not that demonstration. It wouldn't be if it was a year, or two years or twelve. It would only be true if they close down online support for GT6 without delivering all of the features, as I have said repeatedly.

You are most welcome to take it to a lawyer if you want and I am almost certain that after they've take your money for the consultation, some of them won't laugh you out of the office and they'll actually take the case, lose and charge you a few grand.

But I would advise against it most strongly, because I don't like seeing normal people being screwed and I don't like seeing lawyers doing the screwing.

 

[Samus]

I'd actually be curious to know that. Generally speaking when you buy goods in the UK they have be both fit for purpose and last for a reasonable length of time. On the latter the law is very grey as you would expect. Should a 5p plastic fork last as long as a £3000 TV? No, probably not. So it's up to the law to decide how long that reasonable time is based on the product and it's value.

So, I wonder if there is even a grey area in law at all that says a product must live up to advertisements within X amount of time. If you buy a TV that offers internet connective features do they have to be added within X amount of time before it's false advertising? I'd like to know, although my gut instinct would be no.

I would look it up myself but, well, I can't be bothered.

 

[Aloha62_2]

So, I wonder if there is even a grey area in law at all that says a product must live up to advertisements within X amount of time. If you buy a TV that offers internet connective features do they have to be added within X amount of time before it's false advertising? I'd like to know, although my gut instinct would be no.
.

You would have to put forward a argument that it hasn't been updated in a 'reasonable' time and hope you can convince a judge of that, that would be quite a chunk of time and money for something which would be very hard to successfully quantify. It's doable but I doubt very much it's likely. Sony / PD could list precedents of other companies releasing patches over years rather then months and establish it as a norm.

Like many I'm very unhappy about certain aspects of GT5. GT6 and PD's interaction with the community but this isn't a solution.

 

[Akira AC]

I didn't buy GT6 in the first place so as I said, I'm not in the position.

Stop reading right there.

Isn't this same sort of path that people who don't buy COD games say they are all the same? when they aren't.

You didn't bought GT6 so you are not in a position in which you can determine the basis for a sue, besides how are you going to sue. First off there is a disclaimer in all the boxes (no matter the region) which says: "SCEA/SCEE reserves the right to retire the online portion of this game at any time". Even if you managed to build of a case against SCEA or whatever under the grounds of lying in advertising, it would still be pointless.

If that were true, imagine all the class action sues that would exists for missing features in devices like the PS4 and Xbox One, they also advertised a bunch of software and such during the pre-release state, and most of them didn't hold up. And then you have the problem of GT6 being either software, or an entertainment product. You would be asking for a refund just as soon as you got your product, not after you spend some time with and decide not to like it (like buying a blue ray copy of Die Hard and then decide not to like it after 5 months because you stop liking Bruce Willis or whatever).

This is, yet again more rubbish from people who has either hyped themselves by the community or by their own delusional expectations, or people who didn't even bother to play the game. All that was initially advertised is there (except from that huge typo in the game box in the US region), it was understandable in GT5 because of the level of hype that game underwent during it's 6 years or so time of development and all the PR crap that KY showed, but is hardly understandable in GT6.

PD and Sony showed the features the game will have, they showcase the technology behind it and even release a free demo for people to play (GT Academy 2013), it amazes me that from all the software that is not even functional (which doesn't even get sue, like BF4 which's online portion was technically broken at release day, this was considered but got nowehere) GT games are the only ones that get 🤬 for not meting it's fanbase hypothetical expectations with no evidence to support it.

It's called consumer advice, the only people who should be sued for miss-advertising would be the people behind MGS:GZ, that is a :censored:ing demo, which no one says 🤬 because of Hideo. GT fails to deliver livery editor which is nowhere to be announced (remind you, it was announced for GT5, which is not the same) and then go 🤬 crazy when such thing is never developed.

People need to grow up, test water and pick what they like, not bitch about hypothetical features the game clearly stated will not have.

I might get flamed by this post but I be bugged if I don't point out the stupidity that this kind of reasoning takes.

 

[killerjimbag]

I've also made it pretty clear from the start that - particularly since the original question came from a UK member - I'm talking about the UK.

Does the US box really claim "Game play recording" and "Upload of recorded game play"? Only that was confirmed as beyond the PS3's capabilities about 3 years ago.

Yes it does say that.

Famine I think you have made valid points. As for the rest of the people, sell the game.

 

[Mulan]

I'd actually be curious to know that. Generally speaking when you buy goods in the UK they have be both fit for purpose and last for a reasonable length of time. On the latter the law is very grey as you would expect. Should a 5p plastic fork last as long as a £3000 TV? No, probably not. So it's up to the law to decide how long that reasonable time is based on the product and it's value.

So, I wonder if there is even a grey area in law at all that says a product must live up to advertisements within X amount of time. If you buy a TV that offers internet connective features do they have to be added within X amount of time before it's false advertising? I'd like to know, although my gut instinct would be no.

I would look it up myself but, well, I can't be bothered.

Its simple in Sweden. If it says it has it then you are right to return the product if it does not and they cannot give it to you within reasonable time (that is within 2 weeks). But as you say, there are grey areas if there are pictures involved. Like say a hamburger looks really nice but when you get it it really doesnt look like that. But there the law is more forgiving, because with Pictures you can show what is possible to get (can be a feeling too) but not necessary what you actually get. But all else is not ok (say the picture of the car on the package is really nice looking but ingame there is no such car). So if you have bought it in a store, just return the game and explain why. No problems at all. They will take this up to the next level, their supplier, and it will be fixed. And with fixed it can be they change the package or put on a sticker with changes. So check if there are features promissed and not there. If it says later, then you can still return the game and buy it when they are included if you want (a giftcard is nice solution).

 

[HuskyGT]

Going to court for $60 is ridiculous. And even if there were a case, it's a lose-lose. I rather have PD open their damn mouths and say what the heck is going on. If they list what's their plans and address our concerns giving us a straight answer, then cool; I shall wait a bit longer. If they say "no, no more work is being done in GT, no glitch or errors being fixed because our game is perfect and Yamauchi San is a God..." then cool; I move on permanently to the other franchise. Closure is what I would like. Uncertainty and that "soon," 'in a later update," "we are working on it," "maybe," kills me.

 

[HKS racer]

What is that certain time? I don't see one given by anyone involved with the game, so where is the defined time coming from? Where, in Italian law, is the minimum time period for a gaming company to include a promised future update in a game?

Suggesting they're not meeting the terms of their undefined timeframe is laughable because no timeframe was defined. You could choose to buy into their unpublished schedule or not and if you chose to you can hardly complain they aren't meeting it!

Obviously that's what Sony/PD lawyers would try to say, implicitly admitting they deliberately sold "hot air" and it's user fault who is stupid enough, not their fault.
And THAT behaviour is exactly what the accuse would try to challange.

That sounds like you're saying they should be held to different standards because they're big and successful?

I'm saying their benefit for playing that marketing trick has been bigger than a random unkown pubblisher/developer doing the same.

It's relatively easy to win a class action lawsuit when a company wrongs a group of people. You have to demonstrate that you've been wronged.

"PD haven't given us all 8 of the promised future update features after 4 months of a never-stated update period" is not that demonstration. It wouldn't be if it was a year, or two years or twelve. It would only be true if they close down online support for GT6 without delivering all of the features, as I have said repeatedly.

You are most welcome to take it to a lawyer if you want and I am almost certain that after they've take your money for the consultation, some of them won't laugh you out of the office and they'll actually take the case, lose and charge you a few grand.

But I would advise against it most strongly, because I don't like seeing normal people being screwed and I don't like seeing lawyers doing the screwing.

And I don't like normal people discouraging other people to take action when they think they are on the right side.
In certain countries, Italy for instance, you have no guarantee to win even if you are 100% innocent, this didn't stop people on trying to have some justice.

 

[Famine]

Obviously that's what Sony/PD lawyers would try to say, implicitly admitting they deliberately sold "hot air" and it's user fault who is stupid enough, not their fault.
And THAT behaviour is exactly what the accuse would try to challange.

Best of luck to you.

 

[OdeFinn]

Is it legal to push delivery date so far at your legal rights of getting money back is expired?
- Maybe I can start selling "products" to consumers using high promises and getting my "product" to sale because of that, and then just delaying delivery so long at consumers legal rights for demand money back is expired and I'll get away with high stack of money without delivering promised "product"? In legal terms what Sony/PD are using it seems like it's fine if I just send a leaflet to my consumers where is tell how I'll provide moon to them soon on upcoming update, and on maybe playing good customer servant and send even second leaflet also where I still claim same story of upcoming update, just to play time.

I bought Pre-order anniversary version of GT6 mainly because I wanted APEX2 book, even it comes on "downloadable" version, it will be just fine for me, I have color laser printer and it will be just fine for me, I paid my game when advertise of game says at I'll get electronical copy of that APEX2 book, I get zero information after that at there is not coming any APEX2 book.
I felt like my money was screwed considering that APEX2 book, and price what I have paid wasn't correct for product what I have received, due it's false advertised to me.

It would be just great show what I want to see if someone is willing to sue PD/Sony(or both of them though re-seller) for fake advertisement and ripping of money and leaving product half way.

Some guy should check what is that deadline of money back? Because that is the deadline what PD/Sony have to obey on sell time promises of content, or they are committing fraud against consumer.