Support NeoGAF

[Weltall Zero]

This is ridiculous. So if I make a 5 minute long game, people that play more than one freaking minute can't refund it? And if I make a 50 hour long game, people can play 10 hours of it and then refund it?

I understand why the developers of Dear Esther and Everybody's Gone to the Rapture would be upset that people are refunding their games, but at some point you have to realize they simply may have not enjoyed them, because they're definitely not for everyone. This is not the way to make people respect your games.

 

[wrowa]

A hard time-limit is the only solution that's absolutely transparent to customers and as such the only good solution. Percentage played is too abritary: 10% of a game could be 10 minutes or even 10 hours of play time. This makes it an unreliable metric for customers, since it's hard to know what you are actually getting into before buying a game.

It'd also mean that it's up to the developers to decide what "10%" of their game actually is. There's quite a potential conflict of interest, since many developers don't actually want people to get refunds - meaning they could skrew the balance in their favor. It shouldn't be up to them to decide how much people are allowed to play.

And, honestly, I don't think it would change anything to begin with. Someone who finished a game in less than 2 hours and feels like they didn't get their money's worth, probably would feel the same if they got a refund warning 15 minutes into the game.

 

[RPGam3r]

Consumer rights are non-negotiable. Developers should absolutely not have the power to set their own time limits. I don't consider developers and publishers to be any more trustworthy than customers, both sides may abuse the system. The solution to this 'problem' isn't to limit or kill consumer rights. The solution is to make a game that will satisfy your customers so that they don't ask for a refund. If anything the time limit should be increased.

You heard it devs, f your short experiences, pad it with meaningless bullshit to ensure people can't complete it and use their rights (to be assholes) and get refunds.

 

[BrassDragon]

Maybe I'm reading the wrong websites but this doesn't seem to apply to digital games. What I can see says it's 30 days for faulty goods. I'm happy to be corrected if that's wrong though

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/can-i-get-a-refund-on-a-digital-download

There is additional protection on top of the 30 days faulty return right - the EU Consumer Rights Directive ALSO provides a 14 days no-questions asked return right for online purchases (including services so the games industry can't weasel out of this one!)

So you're right about the 30 days but it's only part of the picture.

 

[Xando]

Maybe I'm reading the wrong websites but this doesn't seem to apply to digital games. What I can see says it's 30 days for faulty goods. I'm happy to be corrected if that's wrong though

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/can-i-get-a-refund-on-a-digital-download

Dunno how it is in the UK but in germany the 14 day rule also applies unless they explicitly ask you to confirm that you give up your right to refund and you agree.

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/webw...ringt-Download-Rueckgaberecht-nicht-viel.html (German)

 

[Weltall Zero]

If 14 days was the rule across the board I would have less of an issue, honestly. A strict two hours disproportionately impacts developers of short games, and that's where I take umbrage.

You realize it's 14 days owned AND two hours player? You can't refund a game if you bought it two weeks ago, regardless of time played. So Steam's refund are actually more strict that you say is OK.

 

[BassForever]

They should offer refunds for their products being waste of time even if it takes me more then 2 hours to finish them.

 

[UrbanRats]

How do you arrive at maximum play time, again? Is it crit path only, derived by an average? does Zelda Breath of the Wild lasts for 200 hours or 40?

This makes little sense for anything other than ultra linear games, even then people who are less good at games may have a linear shooter lasts more than double that of a more experienced player.

 

[Chronospherics]

I can understand their perspective. Thinking about it there are actually quite a lot of games where I could either beat it, or feel like I've had my fill within two hours. Not just short narrative driven games, but things like arcade shooters, they're often beaten within an hour or so.

It's perfectly fair to produce and want to sell that type of game, yet these games are open to abuse from the refund system.

It's a bit iffy though because even if you use percentage completion, how does that affect games where the focus is not completion, like Minecraft? Plus, sometimes severe game breaking issues might not appear until later in the game, and those users are cut off from refunds.

 

[EvB]

It's true though.

If your game can't convince me within 2 hours i'll refund it.


It's no problem with physical games, why should it be with digital games?

It's not a case of satisfaction, it's in the case of a 45 minute long art game such as dear Esther where you can literally have the entire experience , then seek a refund.
Whilst this is great that consumers get protection from literally broken games or games that they decide aren't from them, it's unfair on certain developers of genres of games who will suffer because let's face if, people will abuse the system.

And it doesn't need to be a minority of people, it could that it simply occur to a minority of games.
Journey is a hugely satisfying title and critically acclaimed, however it would typically be completed within this 2 hour slot. I can confidently say that if these refunds are legitimised and made simple, then that developer would be worse off than they are now.

 

[Spukc]

They should give all early access games a 24 hour /only 1 day (not playtime) refund window.
That would flush the shit straight out of the store..

💋😍💋

 

[BrassDragon]

You have to realize that the intent of this law is to protect consumers from endless wrangling with a faceless online seller about what constitutes a 'faulty' product.

Introducing telemetric data into this equation is going to make getting a refund much more difficult - there are plenty companies with less moral inclinations than The Chinese Room who'd love to fight refunds on these grounds.

As said before, I love their games - but I'm not giving an inch here.

 

[SiegfriedFM]

If you let consumers refund the game when completed, they will abuse it because people are assholes.

If you let developers arbitrarily set a limit to how long you can play before you can't refund, they will abuse it because people are assholes.

 

[ArtHands]

not all games can be counted in percentage too. Games like sports game (eg basketball), racing game, puzzle (tetris, match3) etc are arcade style games where you play in sessions and there's no end to them.

How the hell do you quantify a game like overwatch, counterstrike or rocket league? What about open world games?

I cant say they were thinking straight when they suggest that.

 

[Rats Off To Ya]

You realize it's 14 days owned AND two hours player? You can't refund a game if you bought it two weeks ago, regardless of time played. So Steam's refund are actually more strict that you say is OK.

I honestly don't know what part of my post you're arguing against. I'm saying I would be more comfortable with 14 days being the only restriction because it's less unfair to short games.

 

[funkystudent]

I totally see where they are coming from but I also think The Chinese Room are kinda bottom tier in the walking sim scene and I get why people would be left unsatisfied with their games and try and get refunds.


The 2 hour / 14 days rule isnt perfect. If "percentage completed" was used for these short games then who would decide what that percentage is? Wouldnt the game dev basically just make it the first 10 minutes out of spite?

Also what about short burst arcade games and roguelikes that fit into the percentage completed model?



Right now I think the 2 hour / 14 day system is way better then nothing.

Also If you are the kinda asshole to deliberately buy short games to refund them then later why arent you just pirating that shit? Who is that person?


Congrats game dev. You just discovered its hard to make money making art instead of making something people actually want.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

Well if that's the case I shouldn't have had to pay more than 2% of tuition fees while Dan Pinchbeck passed his teaching responsibilities off to a number of PhD students so he could make said game.

 

[Xando]

It's not a case of satisfaction, it's in the case of a 45 minute long art game such as dear Esther where you can literally have the entire experience , then seek a refund.
Whilst this is great that consumers get protection from literally broken games or games that they decide aren't from them, it's unfair on certain developers of genres of games who will suffer because let's face if, people will abuse the system.

And it doesn't need to be a minority of people, it could that it simply occur to a minority of games.
Journey is a hugely satisfying title and critically acclaimed, however it would typically be completed within this 2 hour slot. I can confidently say that if these refunds are legitimised and made simple, then that developer would be worse off than they are now.

So basically what you're arguing is that we should lower consumer protections because devs make short games?

Video games are not some special category that should have lower standards just because devs can't keep their audience.

I can literally buy a album on itunes right now and then refund it after listening to it (Apple even has a automated system) and i don't see artists crying about it. If i abuse it they'll eventually keep me from refunding. As simple as that.

If i like your game enough i'll keep it to eventually replay it. If not maybe you should look at your game instead of trying to lower consumer standards.

 

[TheDragon]

I can get their point though. For games that cost like 10-15 bucks and provide 1-2 hours of good experience (like a movie), 2 hour refund rule is a death knell. I hope some other criteria is devised for such developers that make short games.

 

[Chumley]

Consumer rights don't exist in some reality distortion field when it comes to games.

What I do or don't do with your product is none of your damn business. Returning a faulty product within a reasonable period means a full refund.

Fucking bullshit. People can get refunds for movies if they walk out within 10 minutes, I know because I've given them back when I worked at a movie theater. That's $10 for a 1hr. and 30 minute movie. 10 minutes is right around 10 percent of the movie.

A lot of games are $10 for ~2 hours. If you beat the entire fucking game you should not get your $10 back.

This is such a simple concept and people disagreeing with the statement in the OP are being intentionally obtuse at best. The 2 hour rule is absolute unmitigated horseshit for short titles priced accordingly.

 

[UrbanRats]

If I use a toaster for 2 hours and it breaks do I get less of a refund?

That's not a fair comparison, because steam refunds are "no questions asked", they aren't limited to broken products, and a game (like a movie or a book) has sort of a finite and limited life span.
You don't exhaust the use of a toaster after X hours, it'd be more like asking for a refund after you've eaten all your dinner at a restaurant.
If the dinner isn't cooked well, you don't go through the whole of it, before complaining and asking for your money back.

 

[Shrike_Priest]

What are these countries with 14 day refund policies for games?

Should I be able to buy something on pay-per-view and refund it if I didn't enjoy it? Should I be able to walk out of a movie theatre half way through a movie and expect to be refunded if it isn't to my liking (provided it wasn't sold out)? If I buy an album on iTunes after having listened to the 10 second previews, but find the full songs wack, should I be able to refund it?

There are some really odd views on consumer rights here.

If a game is technically broken or in another way not representative of what was advertised, it should be refundable. Regardless of how long you played. If you have a game breaking bug ten hours in, refund. If the framerate is shit despite your system meeting required specs, refund. If the trailer and press show tons of action but it turns out to be a dating sim, refund. If you don't like the game, NO REFUND.

The two hour rule is a step forward in terms of consumer rights compared to no refund at all. But it's far from perfect. I don't think the percentage thing works either. But there's some reasoning here that's straight up bullshit.

I played Dear Esther, and loved the shit out of it. It was 90 minutes of greatness for me. Maybe it wasn't for someone else. That's fine. I was disappointed in Antichamber, but lots of people love it. Do I think I should be able to refund it because I gave it up in the first two hours? No. I made a conscious choice to buy it based on the information I had available and it turned out it wasn't my jam. Not being able to refund it is not some draconian act of oppression on my consumer rights. Refunding something for "not liking it" is pretty darn generous.

Consumer rights don't automatically equate to a defacto "try before you buy"-system. It's cool that Steam wants to allow this. But it is unfair to a large number of indie developers. It shouldn't be left up to the customer's goodwill to pay them or not after finishing a short game. Where do you draw the line? Do I refund a 5/10 game? Do I refund a 3/10 game? Or anything below a 7/10? The decision becomes subjective and basically forces some developers into some version of donationware. While AAA studios don't have to give a shit because they usually have 2 hours of tutorials at the start anyway. If a developer wants to adopt that refund policy, fine. But forcing the same rule on everyone when we have wildly differing types of content is problematic.

 

[UrbanRats]

Fucking bullshit. People can get refunds for movies if they walk out within 10 minutes, I know because I've given them back when I worked at a movie theater. That's $10 for a 1hr. and 30 minute movie. 10 minutes is right around 10 percent of the movie.

A lot of games are $10 for ~2 hours. If you beat the entire fucking game you should not get your $10 back.

This is such a simple concept and people disagreeing with the statement in the OP are being intentionally obtuse at best. The 2 hour rule is absolute unmitigated horseshit for short titles priced accordingly.

No, the statement in the OP is also bollocks, for the reason explained above.
The 2 hours system is not perfect, but a percentage one, means nothing if you know anything about games.
Unlike movies, most games don't roll out in an arbitrary and linear way for every player, as i said the "10% of Zelda BotW" can mean wildly different things.

Moreover some games, even short ones, can take more than 10 minutes just to set up and fiddle around with the settings, on PC, not to mention cutscenes that may go on for minutes, before you get to find out something in the game doesn't work.

 

[wrowa]

It's not a case of satisfaction, it's in the case of a 45 minute long art game such as dear Esther where you can literally have the entire experience , then seek a refund.
Whilst this is great that consumers get protection from literally broken games or games that they decide aren't from them, it's unfair on certain developers of genres of games who will suffer because let's face if, people will abuse the system.

And it doesn't need to be a minority of people, it could that it simply occur to a minority of games.
Journey is a hugely satisfying title and critically acclaimed, however it would typically be completed within this 2 hour slot. I can confidently say that if these refunds are legitimised and made simple, then that developer would be worse off than they are now.

To be honest, I don't see why that "experienced the whole game" bit even matters. If someone pays 10€ for a 45 minutes experience and afterwards feels deceived because they expected something substantially longer, then why wouldn't that be a legit reason for requesting a refund?

Your assumption also seems to be based on the thought that people are assholes. And, honestly, I don't think that's true. If people liked the experience, the vast majority won't ask for a refund even if they finished it in less than two hours. You are selectively looking at the negative effects of refunds - greedy people who refund titles they've finished just because they can - while ignoring the positive effects. What makes you think that refunders aren't easily offset by the people who are only willing to give a game a chance specifically because the return safety net exists? It's one-sided to look at the issue from a "greedy bastards return our game" angle while ignoring that there are also people who only give your weird artistic experience a chance because they know they can get their money back if said experience turns out to be nothing but pretentious hipster bullshit.

 

[Rickenslacker]

They make games that are pejoratively categorized as "walking simulators" right? Very straight-forward, guided, linear, experiential games that are kind of set in their progression. So I can understand why they would pose something like that.

But most games are not like that and quantifying the percentage of completion is often arbitrary.

 

[ghostjoke]

First off, their proposed alternative is terrible and would likely cause a similar "problem" on the other end of things. A set amount akin to a demo would be better, but that would be another set of hurdles on all fronts. A set timer might well be the only thing that works best unless people are willing to allow gameplay monitoring - lol.

Has there actually ever been an example of a game with a general consensus of good that was extremely affected by the two hours refund policy? Also, has there been an definitive proof that abuse of the system gets you blocked from future refunds? I've seem stories come up about things like G2A semi-regularly, so I'd imagine if this was in any way widespread it would get attention.

Journey/Portal/Superhot/Grounds Zeroes/Her Story/Gone Home/Stanley Parable/Firewatch come to mind as games around 2 hours (if you streamlined) that felt worth the pricetags I paid for them. It's hard for me to take what TCR says without evidence when Dear Esther (free mod was the right price) and A Machine for Pigs (better watched than played) would have had me glancing at the refund button had it been in place. I do find refunding completed games sleazy, but I definitely felt ripped off by them. I'd shoulder Dear Esther as I should have realised beforehand, but A Machine for Pigs did feel somewhat deceptive compared to the original (maybe I didn't do enough research). Not saying there isn't a place for TCR's games, but the price point (and perhaps medium) doesn't seem to be inline with a lot of consumers if they're the only company seeing issues.

 

[Chumley]

No, the statement in the OP is also bollocks, for the reason explained above.
The 2 hours system is not perfect, but a percentage one, means nothing if you know anything about games.
Unlike movies, most games don't roll out in an arbitrary and linear way for every player, as i said the "10% of Zelda BotW" can mean wildly different things.

You measure it in relation to the average time taken to finish the game and in relation to the price of the game.

A system that allows someone to see all of the content in a game and then get a full refund, regardless of the price, is absolutely broken. Full stop. You can't have a blanket system for every game, the rules for refunds have to be suited for each price bracket.

The implementation right now totally screws over indie developers and encourages adding bullshit bloat instead of focused, tight, and short experiences. It's poisonous for the industry and it's absurd to me that anyone here defends it.

To be honest, I don't see why that "experienced the whole game" bit even matters. If someone pays 10€ for a 45 minutes experience and afterwards feels deceived because they expected something substantially longer, then why wouldn't that be a legit reason for requesting a refund?

They shouldn't have bought the fucking game before finding out how much time the experience is supposed to last. It takes two seconds to look at the info on the game's page or community hub.

 

[Nev]

Make games that are longer than 2 hours then.

Well, "games" anyways.

Never forget how they ruined Amnesia with their pretentious non-videogame walking simulator mediocrity.

 

[Risk Breaker]

I agree. Base it on achievements unlocked or whatever, but the 2 hour limit doesn't work for every game.

Maybe you should make real games then.

Don't like it? Don't sell your walking simulators on Steam.

Ow the edge.

 

[Eumi]

You measure it in relation to the average time taken to finish the game and in relation to the price of the game.

A system that allows someone to see all of the content in a game and then get a full refund, regardless of the price, is absolutely broken. Full stop. You can't have a blanket system for every game, the rules for refunds have to be suited for each price bracket.

The implementation right now totally screws over indie developers and encourages adding bullshit bloat instead of focused, tight, and short experiences. It's poisonous for the industry and it's absurd to me that anyone here defends it.

Please explain the percentage system in regards to multiplayer only titles with no unlocks.

 

[Chumley]

Make games that are longer than 2 hours then.

Well, "games" anyways.

Never forget how they ruined Amnesia with their pretentious non-videogame walking simulator mediocrity.

So by this logic, all movies should be longer than 2 hours, right?

Please explain the percentage system in regards to multiplayer only titles with no unlocks.

The 2 hour rule stands for multiplayer only games that are designed to have "unlimited" content.

It doesn't stand for Dear Esther type games. Like I said, it can't be broadly carried across every single game, they vary too wildly.

 

[Xando]

Please explain the percentage system in regards to multiplayer only titles with no unlocks.

Or games like EU4 where there is no real progression. Or games like H1Z1 or games like Prison Architect etc.

The % system is just a BS way to lower consumer standards because you made a 1 hour "experience"

So by this logic, all movies should be longer than 2 hours, right?

I can refund any movie i buy on itunes. There is no difference if it is 10 minutes or 3 hours. Why should games be different?

 

[Chairmanchuck]

What are these countries with 14 day refund policies for games?

European law. Everything you order online, you can return in 14 days whether its Games, iPad, cameras etc.

 

[Joey Ravn]

I agree. Base it on achievements unlocked or whatever, but the 2 hour limit doesn't work for every game.

That's an even worse solution. It's reaaaally easy to lock and unlock Steam Achievements using a simple program which I shall not name. There's not even any risk of getting banned, really.

There's no way to content everyone: big devs, small devs, consumers. The line has to be drawn somewhere and there will always be someone who gets left behind it and thinks its unfair to them. There's very little you can do about that.

Implementing a hard limit of 2 hours is an OK policy for most games. In the particular cases of Dear Esther and other games that can be completed well under 2 hours... well, I guess that Valve could go on a case-by-case basis and establish a number of maximum hours allowed for a refund that reflects the nature of that game. For example, 30 minutes in Dear Esther seems OK. But this should be an exceptional policy, otherwise you'll have bigger devs abusing the system. 30 minutes for an Ubisoft title barely gives you time to skip all the intro logos...

 

[matrix-cat]

Steam isn't a large video game retailer? Whether you return the game to Steam or a brick-and-mortar, it's still one less sale. What's your point?

Steam isn't a small indie video game developer, as I specified. Nobody here is worried about Steam not making their money.

Devs like The Chinese Room make their money on games that slip through the cracks of Steam's easily-abusable refund policy is my point. When scumbags play Dear Esther to completion without technical issues and then ask for their money back, it's not Gabe N feeling the pain having to give back his cut of one of the million games he sold that day, it's The Chinese Room being taken for a ride because of rules that are obviously detrimental to them.

 

[Eumi]

The 2 hour rule stands for multiplayer only games that are designed to have "unlimited" content.

It doesn't stand for Dear Esther type games. Like I said, it can't be broadly carried across every single game, they vary too wildly.

So you want to give the specifics of what allows a refund to the devs?

And you don't see what's wrong with that?

 

[Rats Off To Ya]

Make games that are longer than 2 hours then.

Well, "games" anyways.

Never forget how they ruined Amnesia with their pretentious non-videogame walking simulator mediocrity.

How did they ruin it? Did they patch their gameplay into the original game?

 

[Chumley]

Or games like EU4 where there is no real progression. Or games like H1Z1 or games like Prison Architect etc.

The % system is just a BS way to lower consumer standards because you made a 1 hour "experience"

So what you're doing right here is essentially saying certain forms of art should not be allowed because you don't classify them as fitting your own definition of what that art should be. That lower priced titles with a lower time investment requirement flat out should not be made.

I can refund any movie i buy on itunes. There is no difference if it is 10 minutes or 3 hours. Why should games be different?

You can't refund a movie after watching the entire movie.

So you want to give the specifics of what allows a refund to the devs?

And you don't see what's wrong with that?

Of course there have to be specifics. Not all games are the same, and the price range can be massive - from $5 all the way to $60.

 

[Hektor]

People "abusing refunds" have never been a problem.

Everybody who would want to play the game for free so desperately by buying it and refunding it after completion can already just pirate it.

It's a total nonissue

 

[Shrike_Priest]

To be honest, I don't see why that "experienced the whole game" bit even matters. If someone pays 10€ for a 45 minutes experience and afterwards feels deceived because they expected something substantially longer, then why wouldn't that be a legit reason for requesting a refund?

Your assumption also seems to be based on the thought that people are assholes. And, honestly, I don't think that's true. If people liked the experience, the vast majority won't ask for a refund even if they finished it in less than two hours. You are selectively looking at the negative effects of refunds - greedy people who refund titles they've finished just because they can - while ignoring the positive effects. What makes you think that refunders aren't easily offset by the people who are only willing to give a game a chance specifically because the return safety net exists? It's one-sided to look at the issue from a "greedy bastards return our game" angle while ignoring that there are also people who only give your weird artistic experience a chance because they know they can get their money back if said experience turns out to be nothing but pretentious hipster bullshit.

I don't think "I thought it would be longer" should be a reason, no. Especially not if it is hinted at in the pricing, or could be easily checked on howlongtobeat.com. I do think that Steam-descriptions should have some "average playtime" data integrated in any case, though. But I don't see how consumer expectation of length is a legit way to evaluate if anyone should get a refund.

If I think something is going to be 10 hours and it's 2 hours, does that mean I get a refund? If I think it's going to be 4 hours and it's 2 hours, do I get a refund? And what if these shorter games do offer more content on a second playthrough? What if the player only found 20/40 audio-logs and didn't check out all the possible side-content?

By that logic, if I think a game will have a 40 hour campaign and it only has a 20 hour one, I should also be liable for a refund, no?

A game like The Stanley Parable takes you to the end credits in like 30 minutes if you follow the instructions, but can take hours upon hours to explore fully. It's a perfect example of why the 2 hour rule isn't universally applicable. It's not always the case of a lazy developer.

As for the whole, assumption of assholeness. People tend to be assholes. If people can use a system to get more value out of their bucks, they will. It's rational behaviour. I don't know how widespread refunding is. But based on the comments in this thread, a bunch of gamers think it's perfectly fine to refund short games if they don't like it. Regardless of quality control.

 

[FallenGrace]

I understand The Chinese Rooms position here based on their games. Surely the timer could be adjusted on a case by case basis or something?

 

[Xando]

So what you're doing right here is essentially saying certain forms of art should not be allowed because you don't classify them as fitting your own definition of what that art should be. That lower priced titles with a lower time investment requirement flat out should not be made.

No. What i'm saying is there should be no difference. Just like there is no difference with movies or music.

You can't refund a movie after watching the entire movie.

Yes you can. Apple even has a "didn't like this product" category for refunds. Just like steam btw. What you're arguing is for Valve and friends to break the law.

 

[Protome]

The 2 hour thing is bullshit but a percentage based one wouldn't be much better.

Really, the best way would be for it to be handled on a case by case basis but of course that'd cost too much money.

I understand The Chinese Rooms position here based on their games. Surely the timer could be adjusted on a case by case basis or something?

It wouldn't be difficult for Microsoft to require devs to submit an estimate on the time/percentage they think their refund window should be and then to adjust it themselves in certification.

On Steam though, there's no quality control so there's nobody to do that.

 

[Chumley]

It's rational behaviour.

It's amoral behavior. Call it what it is.

 

[Serious Sam]

Steam isn't a small indie video game developer, as I specified. Nobody here is worried about Steam not making their money.

Devs like The Chinese Room make their money on games that slip through the cracks of Steam's easily-abusable refund policy is my point. When scumbags play Dear Esther to completion without technical issues and then ask for their money back, it's not Gabe N feeling the pain having to give back his cut of one of the million games he sold that day, it's The Chinese Room being taken for a ride because of rules that are obviously detrimental to them.

I'm worried about Steam making money. I can live without a few loudmouth indie devs and their questionable quality games, but my entertainment life would be in ruins without Steam. So don't talk like you know what everyone here is worried about.

How is Steam refund policy easily abusable? Do you have any stats and sources to back up these claims? On the contrary, everything I read about it seems like it's pretty strict and working as intended, with a few isolated hiccups here and there.

 

[Chumley]

No. What i'm saying is there should be no difference. Just like there is no difference with movies or music.



Yes you can. Apple even has a "didn't like this product" category for refunds. Just like steam btw.

First off, video games are not movies or music. They are wildly different and vary tremendously in ways movies and music don't. Movies are 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 hours long, very rarely longer or shorter than that. They're also always the same ticket price in the theater. After 10-20 minutes, you can't get a refund. Last time I checked with iTunes if you watched the entire thing you have to send them an email and they decide on refunds by a case by case basis, they do not give out blanket refunds the way Steam does if you're under the 2 hour mark.

Video games can be $5 or they can be $60. They can be cheap multiplayer games that offer "limitless content", or they can be guided linear experiences, or any number of other things. Saying there should be "no difference" is saying there's "no difference" in the content they provide, which is factually wrong. There's so much intellectual dishonesty going on in this thread.

People "abusing refunds" have never been a problem.

Everybody who would want to play the game for free so desperately by buying it and refunding it after completion can already just pirate it.

It's a total nonissue

Remind me how you know this to be an objective fact, and how you seem to know better than TCR about what's a problem for them or not. I'll wait.

 

[Rodelero]

I do kinda sympathise with developers on this. Just from things I've read and heard on the internet, these refund systems are being abused quite heavily, and I guess it just feels yet another thing encroaching on the viability of their businesses along with piracy.

Refunding a faulty game is one thing. Refunding a game that had deceptive marketing is another. Aside from those reasons though? Playing half of a game before deciding you don't want to continue and then refunding it seems deeply abusive.

I feel like developers should be able to choose their own rules on this, much like you can as a seller on eBay. The developer can set what they want the rule to be for their game, and people can decide whether they think it's fair or whether they feel it's suspicious. Obviously, faulty games should always be refundable, as should games that were deceptively marketed.

 

[Snagret]

I can sympathize with them, but I'm not sure how to solve their problem. I think talking certain games as special cases might be a start, since the percentage completed idea would be a disaster across the board and I generally feel like the two hour/two week window works for most games.

But even then, there's no way to really track customer honesty so in a sense what they are really asking for isn't very feasible. Even going by completion is flawed, since somebody could realistically complete the game and find it unsatisfying enough to seem a refund. Typically in most other consumer arenas, dissatisfaction with a product is enough to warrant a refund, even for consumables like food (though obviously there is a big difference between a food product and a video game in terms of labor and the effect of the refund on the creator).

It's a weird, tough problem. If people are completing their game and getting refunds for it in large quantities, that sucks pretty bad. Maybe Valve could lower refund time to reflect a more reasonable chunk of the game for games that are shorter than two hours (and do so on a case by case, not algorithmically). Though this starts to get weird with really short games or games where "completion" of the title is a more nebulous concept. That, and Valve would never do that considering they are trying to be as hands off as possible with their storefront and communicating variable refund time limits starts to get tricky.

I personally think if certain games are being disproportionately refunded, they should really go in and assess the situation and ask themselves two important questions: Is this game broken and unfit the quality of product we want on our storefront, or is our refund system being abused for this title? But even then, like I said, I'm not sure what they could do that wouldn't be clearly restricting consumer rights (which is an important thing for our industry).

 

[Protome]

I'm worried about Steam making money. I can live without a few loudmouth indie devs and their questionable quality games, but my entertainment life would be in ruins without Steam. So don't talk like you know what everyone here is worried about.

He clearly meant nobody is worried about Steam making money because Steam is going to make money regardless.

 

[Hektor]

Remind me how you know this to be an objective fact, and how you seem to know better than TCR about what's a problem for them or not. I'll wait.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Every single person on this planet that wants to screw the devs and play their game for free can already do that, with or without refund systems in place.