My movie analogy fits perfectly because I am putting a clear delineation between suitability (did you like it) versus did it work (fit for purpose). Hence, no refund for the former and yes refund for the latter (the broken projector).
Otherwise you are advocating that you wish to see the movie first and will pay only if 1) the projector worked and 2) if you liked it. Pretty easy to see why that isn't going to work. Movie houses would go under very quickly.
Software has only been "exempted" from this hypothetical simply because it is too easy to pirate, not because we suddenly need to be more consumer wary or overly suspicious and therefore require a method of "testing" to compensate.
Look, I totally understand that the very same reasons we might want to "test" software prior to purchase is because of a generally accepted "no refund" policy if it is a bad product. It's simply too hard (or too expensive) to enforce our legal rights.
And I have raised this topic before on another forum that the biggest issue is because EULA's and T&C's about refunds for faulty software have never been tested. We accept the legal wording because 1) we don't understand it, 2) it's too long and 3) we're in a hurry.
If a precedent can be set whereby a publishing house was forced to refund due to faulty product then the whole game industry would change overnight.
The onus is on us as consumers to not accept faulty product in the first place and to test the law insofar as requiring product to be fit for purpose. And yet we blindly page down our EULA's, click Accept and pay the penalty if we got it wrong.
What if, just once, users got together and actually refused to purchase a game because the T&C's/license/EULA was biased/unfair/unreasonable? Make it public, make a noise, spread the word. The concept and content of agreements will change very quickly. But we don't do we?
We ignore our own due diligence and shift the focus and reasoning back to the software house being "at fault" to justify our pirating.
Do software houses need to change business strategies because of it? No, they don't and nor should they. Piracy is stealing, pure and simple and the law stands the world over on theft as a criminal offense. The onus is on us, as consumers to promote and demand an environment where it is neither tolerated nor acceptable and any attempt to "justify" is simply obfuscating simple fact.
Your argument that software houses screaming that piracy is "ruining their business" is flawed.
A software house "screaming" they are going under for any reason is actually quite irrelevant. What of it? No-one claims responsibility for their own failings, why should they? If it's bad business practices, so be it. Fail.... Who cares? They can scream all they like. If they fail due to bad product they are no different to any other business the world over.
But perhaps your argument relates more to the fact that the "screaming" has been their justification for DRM and piracy prevention tools/methodologies?
But think. They must be correct in their assumptions because if piracy was NOT an issue, why would they need to do it? Why go to the expense? Why risk the backlash? Absolutely no point in DRM if piracy is NOT an issue is it?
Businesses must identify risk, perceived or otherwise, and deploy methods to mitigate that risk. The effects of to do/not to do can't be calculated. It simply can't.
(a bit like the Y2K "bug" being called a farce when nothing happened. Most code cutters know damn well it's because of the work they did to prevent it - I know, I was one of them).
I even saw an argument here that piracy is not theft "in the classical sense" because nothing is "physically stolen". So why is not paying for a ride in a taxi a criminal offense? Sneaking into a game, a movie or public transport? Pffft... A moot point if ever.
Pirates "do what they do" to "protect their rights" while insisting that software houses should not expect payment (or must change THEIR business practices) so we can test the item we intend to purchase.
DRM and it's associated evils become a self-fulfilling prophecy and I made that point. The difference here is that large publishing houses have the power to bring the change.
We do too. We just don't or won't use it.
Ultimately, we are claiming that piracy is a "necessary" action and paying for it is now neither a moral or even an legal obligation.
And yet the problem is one of patience and our haste to get into quickplay mode without doing the homework neccessary prior to purchase.
And ultimately we then blame the source of the supply and not the source of the demand as the reason for the ills they bring upon us.
We have made our bed......