211: Morality of Steam Refunds
This week, we discuss the recent situation with Steam refunds and Firewatch.
Watch Video
This week, we discuss the recent situation with Steam refunds and Firewatch.
Watch Video
Nah, the solution is going to be the same for the used game retail market. Make you spend even more money on a shoddy product. This is where the whole "season pass" got started.LordLundar said:The complaints about refunding Firewatch are really no different than the complaints about used game sales a couple years back and the solution to it is the same; make a game that people want to keep.
Codswallop. I mean, naturally where there is taste there is no argument, but in the case of Firewatch they were asking ?15, which is at less than half as much as a standard AAA game, so it isn't as if they haven't tailored price to the size of the experience. My main issue with your post though is that I don't think "overcharged" should be a valid reason for getting a refund for anything. In no other artistic medium could you get a refund simply because you didn't think something was worth the money, after the fact. You can't get your cinema ticket refunded because the new Teenage Muntant Ninja Turtle movie wasn't all it cracked up to be. You can't read an entire book and then bring it back to the book shop, because you didn't like the ending.SecondPrize said:I solidified my views on video game pricing a long time ago. Unfortunately for the current crop of indie games, for the $20 AA price point my frame of reference is the NFL 2K series. I think that AA games should be 20-30 bucks and have the level of quality as that series. Firewatch isn't an AA experience but they're charging an AA price. I did get enjoyment from it, but still did not get value for the money they charged. Feeling like you've been overcharged is a valid reason to use steam's refund policy and there's no call for shortening the 2 hour window because some devs want to sell a ten dollar game for twice that price.
Overcharging is certainly a valid reason for getting a refund. If you're selling a five dollar game for twenty bucks, which is what Campo Santo is doing, then people are going to feel ripped off and they will get a refund. Tricking me into spending more than what your game is worth doesn't entitle you to keep my money. I'll probably wind up buying firewatch again when it drops to a fiver in a sale because that's what I think it's worth.maninahat said:Codswallop. I mean, naturally where there is taste there is no argument, but in the case of Firewatch they were asking ?15, which is at less than half as much as a standard AAA game, so it isn't as if they haven't tailored price to the size of the experience. My main issue with your post though is that I don't think "overcharged" should be a valid reason for getting a refund for anything. In no other artistic medium could you get a refund simply because you didn't think something was worth the money, after the fact. You can't get your cinema ticket refunded because the new Teenage Muntant Ninja Turtle movie wasn't all it cracked up to be. You can't read an entire book and then bring it back to the book shop, because you didn't like the ending.SecondPrize said:I solidified my views on video game pricing a long time ago. Unfortunately for the current crop of indie games, for the $20 AA price point my frame of reference is the NFL 2K series. I think that AA games should be 20-30 bucks and have the level of quality as that series. Firewatch isn't an AA experience but they're charging an AA price. I did get enjoyment from it, but still did not get value for the money they charged. Feeling like you've been overcharged is a valid reason to use steam's refund policy and there's no call for shortening the 2 hour window because some devs want to sell a ten dollar game for twice that price.
As I see it, the only legitimate reasons to return a game are if the game doesn't work properly, or if the product is something completely different to what was promised in the advertising. Everything else is just exploitation an overly generous returns system on Steam.
On what grounds is it only worth $5? A cinema ticket or DVD in the UK is 7-10 pounds. A game that took me five hours to finish at 15 pounds? Just going on entertainment/time alone, that is an acceptable metric. That said, I don't think the length of a game is a very good metric to measure a game's value. To quote HAWP:SecondPrize said:Overcharging is certainly a valid reason for getting a refund. If you're selling a five dollar game for twenty bucks, which is what Campo Santo is doing, then people are going to feel ripped off and they will get a refund. Tricking me into spending more than what your game is worth doesn't entitle you to keep my money. I'll probably wind up buying firewatch again when it drops to a fiver in a sale because that's what I think it's worth.maninahat said:Codswallop. I mean, naturally where there is taste there is no argument, but in the case of Firewatch they were asking ?15, which is at less than half as much as a standard AAA game, so it isn't as if they haven't tailored price to the size of the experience. My main issue with your post though is that I don't think "overcharged" should be a valid reason for getting a refund for anything. In no other artistic medium could you get a refund simply because you didn't think something was worth the money, after the fact. You can't get your cinema ticket refunded because the new Teenage Muntant Ninja Turtle movie wasn't all it cracked up to be. You can't read an entire book and then bring it back to the book shop, because you didn't like the ending.SecondPrize said:I solidified my views on video game pricing a long time ago. Unfortunately for the current crop of indie games, for the $20 AA price point my frame of reference is the NFL 2K series. I think that AA games should be 20-30 bucks and have the level of quality as that series. Firewatch isn't an AA experience but they're charging an AA price. I did get enjoyment from it, but still did not get value for the money they charged. Feeling like you've been overcharged is a valid reason to use steam's refund policy and there's no call for shortening the 2 hour window because some devs want to sell a ten dollar game for twice that price.
As I see it, the only legitimate reasons to return a game are if the game doesn't work properly, or if the product is something completely different to what was promised in the advertising. Everything else is just exploitation an overly generous returns system on Steam.
On the grounds that it has as much content as other games I wouldn't pay more than 5 bucks for and far less than AA games I'd buy for $20.maninahat said:On what grounds is it only worth $5? A cinema ticket or DVD in the UK is 7-10 pounds. A game that took me five hours to finish at 15 pounds? Just going on entertainment/time alone, that is an acceptable metric. That said, I don't think the length of a game is a very good metric to measure a game's value. To quote HAWP:
SecondPrize said:snip
I know, right? Fuck Campo Santo for charging such a ridiculous price for their "game".Amaror said:snip
Movies aren't games. I have built a concept of value where each are concerned and they are not the same. To me, Firewatch is a five dollar game. I don't expect everyone to price games like I do but I'm certainly not surprised that a title which can be completed under the minimal amount of time Valve gives you to decide if you've made a mistake is being refunded. Also, five to seven? That's stretching it further than Mr. Fantastic. Many of the people refunding this game actually completed it. Valve will give some leeway for something like three hours but there are an awful lot of people who completed this seven hour experience of yours in about two.Vigormortis said:SecondPrize said:snipI know, right? Fuck Campo Santo for charging such a ridiculous price for their "game".Amaror said:snip
I mean, just last week I bought a movie on Bluray for $22.00USD. It was a really fantastic film; lots of clever writing and witty dialog; but the film ended up being only two hours long! Can you imagine the audacity of the production team?! ONLY TWO FUCKING HOURS!
What an absolute rip off. How dare they charge that price for such a short experience?!
And then here comes Campo Santo asking $18~$20 for an experience only five to seven hours long?! The nerve!
Can you point me to someone who legitimately beat the game in two hours? (and wasn't just racing to the end in a speed run attempt) I've seen many claims of doing so but have yet to see one verifiable example.SecondPrize said:Movies aren't games. I have built a concept of value where each are concerned and they are not the same. To me, Firewatch is a five dollar game. I don't expect everyone to price games like I do but I'm certainly not surprised that a title which can be completed under the minimal amount of time Valve gives you to decide if you've made a mistake is being refunded. Also, five to seven? That's stretching it further than Mr. Fantastic. Many of the people refunding this game actually completed it. Valve will give some leeway for something like three hours but there are an awful lot of people who completed this seven hour experience of yours in about two.
You are aware that you're posting in a thread about a discussion on a podcast about a game being refunded a lot on a platform that offers refunds with 2 hours spent, are you not?Vigormortis said:Can you point me to someone who legitimately beat the game in two hours? (and wasn't just racing to the end in a speed run attempt) I've seen many claims of doing so but have yet to see one verifiable example.SecondPrize said:Movies aren't games. I have built a concept of value where each are concerned and they are not the same. To me, Firewatch is a five dollar game. I don't expect everyone to price games like I do but I'm certainly not surprised that a title which can be completed under the minimal amount of time Valve gives you to decide if you've made a mistake is being refunded. Also, five to seven? That's stretching it further than Mr. Fantastic. Many of the people refunding this game actually completed it. Valve will give some leeway for something like three hours but there are an awful lot of people who completed this seven hour experience of yours in about two.
You're welcome to your concept of value, and it's of no real consequence to me whether you enjoy the game or not, but it seems nonsensical to me. You've created a disproportionate value system where one media product is allowed far more lenience in it's price-to-length ratio than another is. I find that very odd considering, in this instance, both media products offer a linear, narrative-driven experience.
So I'm left wondering why people are comfortable with throwing $20~$25 at a Bluray of a movie which lasts all of two hours, but get their knickers in a twist over spending $17~$20 on a story-driven game that lasts over twice that length.
'Course, we're talking about gamers who will review bomb a game on Steam, claiming the game is utter trash, but will still rack-up hundreds of play time hours. Or, gamers who claim to have beaten a game in two hours (and never returned to play again), yet they'll have dozens of play time hours logged.
That so? Thank you for informing me.SecondPrize said:You are aware that you're posting in a thread about a discussion on a podcast about a game being refunded a lot on a platform that offers refunds with 2 hours spent, are you not?
If you've not seen it, look harder. Again, movies are not video games. I expect different things from them. I grew up playing JRPGS that could easily take 30 hours to play through and wouldn't stand for a movie of that length. Assuming that these two vastly different media formats can both be judged on length with the same weight makes little sense.Vigormortis said:That so? Thank you for informing me.SecondPrize said:You are aware that you're posting in a thread about a discussion on a podcast about a game being refunded a lot on a platform that offers refunds with 2 hours spent, are you not?
And you are aware that the podcast is saying the claim is that the game can be beaten in two hours, are you not? I've yet to see anyone who's actually done it in that time.
As I said before, if you have a specific example, I'd be more than happy to see it. Otherwise, what we have here is a podcast questioning the ethics of a hypothetical situation based on vacuous claims.
\_(ツ_/
Besides, that doesn't really address my confusion on why this particular media product, in your view, must have a drastically reduce price whereas another, similar media product is fine at an inflated price.