Per that wording, it seems like Valve's policy is both stronger and weaker than the Australian standards, isn't it?
E.g. if a game clearly specifies that it's Mac only, and you buy it but only have a PC, AFAICT Valve will give you a refund even though Australian standards wouldn't require it. Ditto if you buy the game and realize you'd already bought it elsewhere, etc.
It sounds like it's only in the narrow case where the game, say, claims to support Mac but doesn't, that Valve's policy becomes weaker than the Australian standards. Or am I missing something?
(Note this is all referring to Valve's current policy - I understand it wasn't in effect when the ACCC case started.)
E.g. if a game clearly specifies that it's Mac only, and you buy it but only have a PC, AFAICT Valve will give you a refund even though Australian standards wouldn't require it. Ditto if you buy the game and realize you'd already bought it elsewhere, etc.
It sounds like it's only in the narrow case where the game, say, claims to support Mac but doesn't, that Valve's policy becomes weaker than the Australian standards. Or am I missing something?
(Note this is all referring to Valve's current policy - I understand it wasn't in effect when the ACCC case started.)