Last I looked they were specifically included. Can you maybe cite it as you're the opposing party.
I'll save some time:
Consumer Rights Act (CRA), 2015, UK:
Section 34
Digital content to be of satisfactory quality
(1)Every contract to supply digital content is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the digital content is satisfactory.
(2)The quality of digital content is satisfactory if it meets the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—
(a)any description of the digital content,
(b)the price mentioned in section 33(1) or (2)(b) (if relevant), and
(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).
(3)The quality of digital content includes its state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of digital content—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which digital content of that kind is usually supplied;
(b)freedom from minor defects;
(c)safety;
(d)durability.
I can't cite caselaw on it, but S34(3)(a) would mean that you can finish the game, for example, so a bug preventing that would be a reason to return as the supplier failed to meet the required contractual terms under S34(1). Note that even minor defects S34(3)(b) are reasons a supply of digital content might not be acceptable.
I'll save some time:
Consumer Rights Act (CRA), 2015, UK:
Section 34
I can't cite caselaw on it, but S34(3)(a) would mean that you can finish the game, for example, so a bug preventing that would be a reason to return as the supplier failed to meet the required contractual terms under S34(1). Note that even minor defects S34(3)(b) are reasons a supply of digital content might not be acceptable.