Support NeoGAF

[YianGaruga]

That's not what I was talking about though:


This makes it sound like I can spend 300 hours on The Witcher 3 and still get a refund within 14 days. Just wanted to clarify that that's not really the case. Afaik you CAN do it but only through proper legal channels, so it'd be more work than just sending an email. (not 100% sure about that though) And even if you go through with it Valve (or other companies) might stop doing business with you.
.

First of all we're talking about physical goods. Digital goods are still a bit of a grey area.

Every single online purchase I make comes with a very clear disclaimer that I can send it back within 14 days, no questions asked. You don't have to go through legal channels, simply packing it back up and sending it back is enough to qualifiy as a revocation of the purchase. That's EU law.

Shops MAY charge you a percentage of the purchase price if it's heavily used for example, but that doesn't apply to games really. It really is that simple.

 

[Durante]

I actually refunded a game I completed 95% of, and I don't feel bad about it in the least.
It was already really technically wonky (and mediocre in terms of gameplay) for most of it, and then the final puzzle was completely broken.
With any of the policies proposed here I wouldn't have been able to refund it.

Basically, ask yourself this: what kind of publisher/developer has an incentive to argue for people being stuck without recourse with games that did not fulfill their expectations?

The current system is wonderful, but saying it can't be improved to accomodate shorter experiences is bizarre.

That's not what I said. I said that the proposed mechanisms make it less transparent for consumers. Do you disagree?

 

[Fantastapotamus]

First of all we're talking about physical goods. Digital goods are still a bit of a grey area.

I missed that part then, my bad

 

[Snagret]

To go back to the film comparison, games are not like films at all in almost every circumstance except for TCR games and "walking simulators".

It's a specific case, but under that specific case I don't think you should be entitled to get a refund if you simply don't like it after spending more than 2 hours on it, or finishing over half of the intended playtime. Like I said before, that would be like asking for a refund after finishing a movie in the theater. I understand that you said iTunes lets you do this, but I've only ever rarely heard that being a thing and that it's a case by case thing. It certainly isn't a thing in theaters.

Movies have trailers and reviews to prepare people before they spend their money. Games have the same thing. That should be enough, and if it isn't, people don't have to buy them.

I would suppose it depends on the theater, but you actually can totally do this and I've personally seen it happen. Also, it's obviously a much different situation for a variety of reasons, but in a similar most grocery stores will give you a refund for most products you were unsatisfied with, regardless of whether you fully consumed them or not.

Video games not allowing you to refund a product you've consumed a significant chunk of is actually fairly unique to the video game industry. Most other industries are much more lax in this regard, because they recognize the importance of satisfying unhappy customers even if some people abuse the system.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

It's not that easy though and companies would most likely stop doing business with you if you actually go through with this.

No company stops doing business with you if you do it honestly.

I think its not that hard to figure out that guy A is just ordering new lenses for his camera to "rent" them or if he really uses them and isnt satisfied with it.
Amazon closes accounts of "renters".

If I buy anything else physically, I can still send it back without any reason in 14 days.

 

[Yjynx]

I actually refunded a game I completed 95% of, and I don't feel bad about it in the least.
It was already really technically wonky (and mediocre in terms of gameplay) for most of it, and then the final puzzle was completely broken.
With any of the policies proposed here I wouldn't have been able to refund it.

Basically, ask yourself this: what kind of publisher/developer has an incentive to argue for people being stuck without recourse with games that did not fulfill their expectations?

That's not what I said. I said that the proposed mechanisms make it less transparent for consumers. Do you disagree?

.....really? Wow? How about lets make a policy where broken game are allowed for refund.....

Its like I eat the wholething... Dont like it... dont want to pay..

Edit:

Im out. To much entitlement without balance in power.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

No company stops doing business with you if you do it honestly.

Oh, for sure. I was more talking about people who are trying to abuse the system.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

Everyone arguing that a percentage-based system would be unfair for certain genres of games, so what? It's plainly obvious that the current time-based system is unfair for certain genres of game.

The way to make it fair is to raise the time limit. Seven days, fourteen days, whatever. Go nuts and get rid of the limits entirely. Then it's fair to every game, and then we'd see how heavily it would be abused and how all developers would start complaining. It's easy to shitpost away these concerns from The Chinese Room because "walking simulators aren't real games, should'a made your art conform to these specific guidelines if you didn't want people stealing it", but I think there's a pretty obvious reason why Valve wouldn't be willing to institute a longer refund period.

I agree with this. I like Dear Esther and other short walking simulators. I don't want developers to be punished for making short games because then they might stop being made. Let's get rid of the arbitrary 2 hour time limit and see how long it takes to get the hard numbers of refund abuse that everyone wants to see.

 

[BrassDragon]

I actually refunded a game I completed 95% of, and I don't feel bad about it in the least.
It was already really technically wonky (and mediocre in terms of gameplay) for most of it, and then the final puzzle was completely broken.
With any of the policies proposed here I wouldn't have been able to refund it.

Basically, ask yourself this: what kind of publisher/developer has an incentive to argue for people being stuck without recourse with games that did not fulfill their expectations?

That's not what I said. I said that the proposed mechanisms make it less transparent for consumers. Do you disagree?

This is the key thing but people seem unable to look beyond the The Chinese Room's situation and the implication for consumer rights in general if we let this stand.

There is also a visceral ignorance of the actual law and the fact that it doesn't close every loophole ('*gasp* You mean consumers can ABUSE their return right?') These concepts have been on the books in EU product and service industries, online and offline, for years and it hasn't killed the economy yet.

Unless you produce some hard evidence that refund policies are abused en masse, you're trying to change a solid and fair rule based on the exceptions to that rule.

 

[Chumley]

I agree with this. I like Dear Esther and other short walking simulators. I don't want developers to be punished for making short games because then they might stop being made. Let's get rid of the arbitrary 2 hour time limit and see how long it takes to get the hard numbers of refund abuse that everyone wants to see.

No one knows for sure one way or the other, but I'd bet money that if they did that it would be a bloodbath. The reason Valve doesn't do it is because they know it would be a bloodbath.

 

[matrix-cat]

I have yet to see anyone (including Chinese Room) provide any evidence this is actually the case. You'd think for as long as we have the Steam refund policy now you'd have lots of indies complaining about this.

I've definitely seen it pop up before, but I'm not up for a Googling session. All I'm getting at here is that, regardless of how often it actually happens, any game that can't be completed in under two hours doesn't face this problem. Devs that operate exclusively in the realm of short, linear, one-and-done games are put in this situation, whereas those making different kinds of games never have to worry about it, solely because of the rules Valve laid out.

A seven-day, no-questions-asked policy would make it fair for everyone, but I'm pretty sure hell would freeze over before Valve would ever institute that policy.

 

[Shiggy]

First of all we're talking about physical goods. Digital goods are still a bit of a grey area.

Every single online purchase I make comes with a very clear disclaimer that I can send it back within 14 days, no questions asked. You don't have to go through legal channels, simply packing it back up and sending it back is enough to qualifiy as a revocation of the purchase. That's EU law.

Shops MAY charge you a percentage of the purchase price if it's heavily used for example, but that doesn't apply to games really. It really is that simple.

The game needs to be sealed though. So if that case you cannot use it. The reason for the 14-day regulation is that users should be able to look at goods just as they can in retail shops. And there you cannot redeem codes or open game boxes either.

 

[Moral Panic]

I bought a book from Waterstones and they give you 30 days to return it.

 

[YianGaruga]

The game needs to be sealed though. So if that case you cannot use it.

They don't. While amazon for example says that, they take unsealed games no questions asked. Other big online retailers do too.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

It's definitely true that a 2 hour refund doesn't make sense for a game that's less than 2 hours long.

Yeah it's definitely a policy that's problematic for very short games since people can beat them, or come very close, and refund.

The simplest solution is probably to just exclude short games from the policy--but that puts burden on Steam, MS and other stores offering refunds to review submissions and make sure devs aren't falsely flagging games as 2-3 hours or whatever length cut off they went with.

So it's a tough situation as the under 2 hours played within 14 days of purchase is a very consumer friendly policy, but some assholes will definitely abuse it to play short games for free. There's just no way to have a universal refund policy that works for everyone and every game so there going to have to find a way to make some exceptions for the super short games of the world IMO.

 

[benicillin]

I feel for them because I love short form games and experiences. I'd hate to see the refund system get abused for games like Virginia.

Maybe those devs could work wifhMS and Sony on how their achievements are unlocked to mark certain progress points and help flag folks who are actually abusing the return system?

 

[Big_Al]

No problems with the way it is currently on Steam. It's a godsend and as a consumer/customer I love it.

 

[Chumley]

No problems with the way it is currently on Steam.

The premise of this topic in the OP is that a certain developer of games on steam think there is a problem. So what even motivated you to make this post in the first place?

 

[Xando]

Maybe those devs could work wifhMS and Sony on how their achievements are unlocked to mark certain progress points and help flag folks who are actually abusing the return system?

If MS and Sony want to open themselves up to lawsuits in the EU sure.

 

[BigEmil]

They're just saying that because they know their game is short and not good people will refund it

 

[Boss Doggie]

I agree with this. I like Dear Esther and other short walking simulators. I don't want developers to be punished for making short games because then they might stop being made. Let's get rid of the arbitrary 2 hour time limit and see how long it takes to get the hard numbers of refund abuse that everyone wants to see.

They won't stop being made because people who genuinely liked them well enough will buy them. Piracy exists and yet games are still being made.

This is the key thing but people seem unable to look beyond the The Chinese Room's situation and the implication for consumer rights in general if we let this stand.

There is also a visceral ignorance of the actual law and the fact that it doesn't close every loophole ('*gasp* You mean consumers can ABUSE their return right?') These concepts have been on the books in EU product and service industries, online and offline, for years and it hasn't killed the economy yet.

Unless you produce some hard evidence that refund policies are abused en masse, you're trying to change a solid and fair rule based on the exceptions to that rule.

Pretty much. Loophole abuse has been on systems that protect consumer rights yet they remain because even with those abuse they still work.

 

[Chumley]

The theater comparisons are way off though considering in a theater i use their facilities and occupy a space they could actually use to sell to a different person. That's not the case with games.


Itunes/Amazon or whatever digital platform you use is a way better comparison to steam than some random movie theater.

It's not some "random movie theater". It's the policy of theater chains across America. They anecdotally might give a refund or gift certificate to someone who bitches enough, but that's not common. And again, I don't know where you're getting this official policy of Amazon/iTunes being that anyone can get a full refund for any movie they watch. Everything I've read says that's not the case unless they for some reason decide upon getting an email that you've made a good enough point for getting a refund.

A physical movie you can return, yeah, but they can resell that.

 

[jesu]

First of all we're talking about physical goods. Digital goods are still a bit of a grey area.

Every single online purchase I make comes with a very clear disclaimer that I can send it back within 14 days, no questions asked. You don't have to go through legal channels, simply packing it back up and sending it back is enough to qualifiy as a revocation of the purchase. That's EU law.

Shops MAY charge you a percentage of the purchase price if it's heavily used for example, but that doesn't apply to games really. It really is that simple.

I don't know about that

The 14-day "cooling off" period does not apply, among others, to:

plane and train tickets, as well as concert tickets, hotel bookings, car rental reservations and catering services for specific dates
goods and drinks delivered to you by regular delivery – for example delivery by a milkman.
goods made to order or clearly personalised – such as a tailor-made suit
sealed audio, video or computer software, such as DVDs, which you have unsealed upon receipt.
online digital content, if you have already started downloading or streaming it
goods bought from a private individual rather than a company
urgent repairs and maintenance contracts – if you call a plumber to repair a leaking shower, you can't cancel the work once you have agreed on the price of the service.

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

Unless that website is mistaken.

 

[matrix-cat]

I don't think comparisons to physical goods are especially relevant. When you return a barbecue, the store can sell it again and still make some profit; that's why they're willing to give you better refund terms. When you give up your digital licence for a game, the developer doesn't anything of value. You can play Dear Esther to completion, then give your worthless digital key back to the developers in exchange for all the money you paid.

Imagine if Valve did raise their refund period to thirty days, no questions asked. Suddenly, Steam is a free rental service with the largest library in existence. Drop $60 on the hottest, newest, AAAest game, play everything it has to offer, hit the refund button and get your money back. I guarantee it'd be more than just The Chinese Room complaining.

 

[Xando]

It's not some "random movie theater". It's the policy of theater chains across America. They anecdotally might give a refund or gift certificate to someone who bitches enough, but that's not common. And again, I don't know where you're getting this official policy of Amazon/iTunes being that anyone can get a full refund for any movie they watch. Everything I've read says that's not the case unless they for some reason decide upon getting an email that you've made a good enough point for getting a refund.

It is literaly law in the EU.

You seem to look at this from a US perspective with no actual right to refund while i look at it from a EU perspective where this is implemented in our consumer law and proposing and even putting a limit of 2 hours onto it is a grey zone considering the actual law speaks of 14 days.

 

[Durante]

There's this strange (and erroneous) assumption underlying many arguments here that there are no refund abuse protections at all on Steam.

Valve made it very clear that people who abuse the system will be prevented from using it when they launched the policy.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

In a way it would be better. Right now someone can sit on the menu for two hours and be refused a refund, because the game is launched and so being played. Their method would prevent that from happening. It would also not waste time getting settings right and trying the game, going back to the menu, setting controls etc.

 

[Chumley]

It is literaly law in the EU.

You seem to look at this from a US perspective with no actual right to refund while i look at it from a EU perspective where this is implemented in our consumer law and proposing and even putting a limit of 2 hours onto it is a grey zone considering the actual law speaks of 14 days.

The EU allows full refunds of all digital goods within 14 days? Really?

 

[ArtHands]

The premise of this topic in the OP is that a certain developer of games on steam think there is a problem. So what even motivated you to make this post in the first place?

Well there's an extremely insignificant amount when we have several thousands of game developers out there.

Not to mention developers not only didn't oppose it on Steam actively since it got introduced, but it didn't stop the amount of games from appearing on Steam after that.

 

[Xando]

The EU allows full refunds of all digital goods within 14 days? Really?

On principle yes.

There are some grey zones by which the actual right to refund can be limited by explicitely asking the consumer to accept this but this can go either way in court.

 

[RichiRamjag]

Tell that to everyone who bought No Man's Sky.

Easily. No mans sky looked like a shitshow from the start and folks should have waited for impressions.

 

[Hektor]

I don't think comparisons to physical goods are especially relevant. When you return a barbecue, the store can sell it again and still make some profit; that's why they're willing to give you better refund terms. When you give up your digital licence for a game, the developer doesn't anything of value. You can play Dear Esther to completion, then give your worthless digital key back to the developers in exchange for all the money you paid.

If you refund a digital game they too, can sell it to others and still make some profit. They don't even need to get their game back and label it as used because their digital supply is unlimited.

 

[Whompa02]

They could add a 2 hour timer

Yes because being under pressure to blast through games instead of actually enjoying them, just so I can get my money back, is a great idea.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Personally I'd be ok with an additional rule: If you've finished the game and refund it, you get a strike. Do that too often and you won't be able to refund finished games. (2 hours/14 days still apply)

 

[Aselith]

I don't think even in the case of less than two hour games that the refund percentage is huge. Did they give numbers on percent refunded?

 

[Giran]

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

Not quite. Under EU law consumers are not eligible for a refund from the very second they start downloading the data from the online service or unseal the packaging of the retail copy. EU consumer laws are still some of the best the world has to offer. When someone provides more favorable terms for the average consumer, I see it as something to celebrate.

I honestly doubt people would abuse this system en masse, because if their goal from the very beginning was to play a short game for free, piracy is just a much more convenient option. It's not like most of these games come with state of the art DRM to prevent that. If they refund your game after actually buying it and giving it a chance, it's because they were seriously unhappy with what they got or have technical difficulties. In either of those cases I don't feel there's anything wrong, morally or otherwise, with refunding it.

 

[BigEmil]

Yes because being under pressure to blast through games instead of actually enjoying them, just so I can get my money back, is a great idea.

This, adding a timer pressures the buyer and more likely to refund it

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

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.

Well, what counts as a broken game? That is variable from game to game. I mean Dishonored 2 on PC was an unplayable, broken port to some and perfectly fine to others. I agree that the 2 hour refund time is easily exploitable by those "try before you buy" individuals, but that is a small price to pay when protecting the consumer against broken ports or games that are falsely advertised, either with bullshot or straight up lies (Hey Aliens Colonial Marines).

 

[Hektor]

Personally I'd be ok with an additional rule: If you've finished the game and refund it, you get a strike. Do that too often and you won't be able to refund finished games. (2 hours/14 days still apply)

Steam is already doing something like this, where they lock you out of refunding if they see you are trying to game the system.

The exact way they do it isn't public tho

 

[GLAMr]

They lost me when people started using gamergate to justify their position... Ick.

 

[Jebusman]

Personally I'd be ok with an additional rule: If you've finished the game and refund it, you get a strike. Do that too often and you won't be able to refund finished games. (2 hours/14 days still apply)

I feel posts like this are sort of highlighting the problem with people's views on the refund system, given that Valve already does this.

The narrative from a lot of the "anti-refund" side seem to be missing how the refund system already works in practice.

A lot of the belly-aching I hear from the devs who do complain about the refund system just seem generally mad that in an industry that up until this point, made it extremely difficult for a consumer to receive any refund at all, finally allows some refunds to happen, and they're mad that people are refunding their game.

No self reflection as to why people are doing so. The quality of the experience they're selling (relative to the cost) surely can't be a factor. It must be people just want a free ride, and rather than doing it the much, MUCH easier way of downloading a torrent and playing a pirated version, they're going to go through the process of setting up a steam account, paying for it, playing it in it's entirely, THEN refunding it. Each and every time.

 

[ScientificPizza]

Nothing about game refunds is simple. They're just thinking in terms of the kind of games they make

 

[Shiggy]

They don't. While amazon for example says that, they take unsealed games no questions asked. Other big online retailers do too.

That's due to the retailers' goodwill then, not due to EU regulation.

 

[bede-x]

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.

Exactly. And if someone abuses the system to complete short games and then refund them again and again, the service provider should step in and deny them further refunds.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Exactly. And if someone abuses the system to complete short games and then refund them again and again, the service provider should step in and deny them further refunds.

Valve is actually doing that...

 

[Gedi]

I feel bad for TCR and similar because there will be some 'customers' that definitely abuse the system. Yes, someone could have pirated the game anyway but a self-approved refund button definitely makes it more convenient. Whether that will have much of a material difference on overall sales of a product compared to the 'pre-refund' days, I'm not so sure.

With regards the right to a refund within 14 days of Internet/long distance orders in the EU, upon receipt of the physical product the retailer can still refuse a refund if they feel the product has been used/worn & suffered damage or additional wear and tear as a result. And certainly in the UK at least there is no right to a refund from a bricks and mortar store for unwanted goods. So maybe it's the automated nature of the process that leaves some developers more susceptible than others.

Personally I feel that if they were to have a very large and bold disclaimer prior to downloading/purchasing the software that this title is exempt from an automatic refund under 2 hours or if you progress beyond a certain point/area/level in that time. If you would have to agree to that before proceeding but it wouldn't affect your statutory right to a refund if the game was faulty, I think that's fine but that seems abhorrent to some.

What is the reason given why DLC is exempt from the refund policy (for MS, don't know about Steam)? Might it be because it's often short and more larger developers have put pressure on due to them saying it's open for abuse?

Maybe "walking simulator" developers will set their games second acts up as DLC in the future.

 

[Ozium]

So you don't have any receipts. Gotcha.

Next time you try to state something as definitive fact, get some proof to back it up first.

Do you have proof that people abusing refunds is a large problem or are you using the tweet of someone with personal investment in the matter to provide you with "definitive facts?"

 

[Jebusman]

I feel bad for TCR and similar because there will be some 'customers' that definitely abuse the system. Yes, someone could have pirated the game anyway but a self-approved refund button definitely makes it more convenient. Whether that will have much of a material difference on overall sales of a product compared to the 'pre-refund' days, I'm not so sure.

I would think for pirates downloading a torrent with some bootleg installer and/or unzip and play would actually be a bit more convenient than actually paying cash for a game, then asking for a refund (which doesn't get you your cash back instantly).

And people who "abuse" the system get their ability to refund games taken away from them. This is how Steam already works.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

How in the world do they propose to calculate how you many game I need to play to "complete" a multiplayer game like Overwatch?

 

[Htown]

I don't see that Steam refunds are a problem at all, two hours or no. When it comes down to it, if I actually wanted to play your game without paying you, I'd just pirate it.

If I'm going through the trouble of buying it and then returning it, it's because something was actually wrong with your game.

I just don't see the motivation for this theoretical "problem" of "too many people" returning a game.