Rust Dev Thinks Limiting Steam Releases is "Insane"

[Warachia]

He is entitled to quite a few things when he buys from Steam. A contract made between seller and buyers always automatically entails a few protections for both parties. To ensure that the seller gets his money in a timely fashion and that the buyer receives a product that worked as the seller advertised, within certain limits.

Steam IS the seller here, it can't just withdraw from any responsibility under the guise of *just being a virtual platform*. What Steam tries to do with its refund policies is to one-sidedly put the responsibility for a purchase on the shoulders of the consumer. That's not the way it works, contracts can't give all the rights to one party and all the responsibility to another.

Definitely not in the EU, where their policy of "no refunds" is simply illigal and in following the Steam forums, many people have been aware of that and have pursued their refunds from Steam for nonfunctional games successfully.

He is not entitled to anything from me, right? I don't know if you're an expert on EU law, but if I (an EU citizen in an EU member state) order a pizza on just-eat.dk (restaurants sign up and sell food of already questionable quality there and Just-Eat takes a 10% cut), and I am not satisfied with my meal and want a 100% refund, I'm entitled to it? And who should reimburse me. The pizzeria or Just-Eat? The pizza is right here, untouched and in the original packaging.

It's not that I want to defend bad business practice or that fastfood and digital PC game licenses are ecxactly the same. But they are similar in the sense that they are worthless once sold and that Steam and Just-Eat just provides the platform and takes their cut. In my experience Steam is cheaper than Just-Eat as well.

If you get your pizza with none of the toppings you had ordered, or if they didn't cook it, you would be entitled to a full refund.

Several games on Steam are unplayable pieces of shit, thinking that you are not entitled to a refund on something when Steam told you it would work, and your computer met the operating specs for it, is ridiculous (and illegal), yet that's what they try to claim in their TOS.

If you buy a game on Steam or the Humble Store or any other reseller that activates on Steam and you want your money back it's between you and the developer. Just like, if I want a refund on the pizza I ordered and payed online, it's between me and the restaurant.

Steam is a platform for developers to sell their games as much as it is a store for you and me to buy them. If a game doesn't work on your computer but it does on mine, then you still own a license to play the game you just don't own the computer for it and I don't see why you should be entitled to a refund at all.

Because the store page TELLS YOU that it will work on your computer just fine, when it doesn't, and refusing to refund this non-working purchase is ILLEGAL.

I can see why some would refund you, though. You don't know how software licenses have been sold since forever and you got your fingers burned. It would be the nice thing to just take the blow for you and suck up the wasted money in the short term to profit on you in the long term. The whole swings and round-a-bouts thing. But it has never been your right because you still own a license for software that technically works and can't be resold. We are not talking about a wobbly chair that can be replaced a couple of times before refunding you, you know the rights of the seller or re-seller. Because you don't want the software you just bought a license for at all.

Hole on a minute here:
"But it has never been your right because you still own a license for software that technically works and can't be resold."
You are missing my issue, the issue is that on a technical level, THE SOFTWARE DOES NOT WORK, and Steam told me it would work, and according to steam, it cannot be resold, or refunded.

I also ranted earlier in the thread about why you can't and shouldn't treat software like hardware. It ends with software patents AKA computer implemented solutions and software being sold on hardware (You already can't remove and get a refund for the OS on your new windows laptop), killing digital. Or just patented into oblivion so only EA can release games. Imagine if Mojang patented every computer implemented function in Minecraft. From hitting things, picking things up and placing things and all the way through. They would take and own patents on computer implemented solutions used in every game from Microsoft Solitaire over Battlefield to StarCraft and every future game development in every genre have to pay royalties or legal fees to Mojang before they can even install the software for making their new game. This is of course an extreme scenario that hopefully wouldn't fly in any court. But it is the direction you want to move software into when you treat it as hardware.

You seem to be confusing me with somebody else, I fail to see how any of this relates to anything I'm saying, in any case I already don't think software should be treated like hardware.

And the consumers and their rights are the ones forcing this through their own, and their politicians, ignorance. And why wouldn't they be ignorant? No one tells them this, because money, and the politicians are idiots when it comes to IT and computers anyway. Specially the ones in the EU who are the ones who are not good enough to run at home or the old and wooly political mammoths you have to get rid of. So you dump them off in the EP for a nice retirement.

How dare consumers want what they were told they were entitled to! How dare these petty consumers, wanting their programs to work right and not end in them wasting sixty fucking dollars!

I'm also not sure what that whole rant about politics really has to do with anything.

 

[Atmos Duality]

As I pointed out to a previous poster, I really don't think having access to all the info really makes a difference, in fact I think it only exasperates the problem. Speaking for myself, it's painful enough sifting through all the garbage looking for the good stuff and that's without having to sift though all the feedback on the garbage as well. It's tedious and time consuming, time I'd much rather spend actually playing the games.

If that's the case then it seems that this widespread urge for instant-gratification will cause a crash no matter what Steam does.

Just remember: All convenience has a cost. If you want someone to spoon-feed you their recommendations, then you have no right to complain when all you get is stuff suited to their taste (or needs).

 

[Canadamus Prime]

As I pointed out to a previous poster, I really don't think having access to all the info really makes a difference, in fact I think it only exasperates the problem. Speaking for myself, it's painful enough sifting through all the garbage looking for the good stuff and that's without having to sift though all the feedback on the garbage as well. It's tedious and time consuming, time I'd much rather spend actually playing the games.

If that's the case then it seems that this widespread urge for instant-gratification will cause a crash no matter what Steam does.

Just remember: All convenience has a cost. If you want someone to spoon-feed you their recommendations, then you have no right to complain when all you get is stuff suited to their taste (or needs).

I don't want someone to spoon feed me their recommendations. I'm not at all suggesting that Valve employ a team of guys to sit around playing all the potential candidates for Steam and then give the seal of approval. All I'm suggesting is that Steam have some standards and maybe some minimum requirements that games need to meet before being put on the platform. Filter out all the shit like Earth 2066 and the War Z before it even gets on there.

 

[viranimus]

How about you put focus on the customers rather than the developer by giving customers choice if they wish to subscribe to a revokable license to access your product, or actually legally purchase a copy of your game and then we can start to determine if this assessment of insanity has merit, or just more self destructive and hypocritical cheer leading.

What would be the point? You couldn't afford to buy his game anyway and he could only sell it once. You would also have to pay someone to finish it when you take it off his hands. Not saying it couldn't be sold online but Steam wouldn't be the place to do it.

I'm sorry but are going to have to settle for buying licenses for software someone else owns, if you want to buy digitally distributed games. It's probably for the best this way as someone else might like to buy a license and play the game as well.

If you want to own software you make it yourself or pay someone handsomely for making it for you.

Captcha-clone: downward slope

Yup.

Nope.

That exhibits a very limited and mistaken understanding of ownership. There is a fundamental difference between the control a content creator has being an owner of an intellectual property versus copies of a creation sold for mass consumption. However this is illustration why this cannot be brought up enough. When erroneous assumptions regarding economic principles that were sorted out long before digital distribution or even games existed are allowed to flourish unchecked to the point they become adopted as "just how it is" en mass it goes a long way in explaining why as a whole consumers fail to take and are unconcerned for the responsibility and consequences of their purchases.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I don't want someone to spoon feed me their recommendations. I'm not at all suggesting that Valve employ a team of guys to sit around playing all the potential candidates for Steam and then give the seal of approval. All I'm suggesting is that Steam have some standards and maybe some minimum requirements that games need to meet before being put on the platform. Filter out all the shit like Earth 2066 and the War Z before it even gets on there.

Alright. What requirements?
How do you ascertain that a game meets these requirements if nobody plays them before they go to market?
How do you enforce these requirements if nobody with authority plays them?

The answer is that you need exactly what you suggest against: A quality control team on Valve's payroll. And even that system is not without fault, as we've seen gobs upon gobs of shovelware shat out onto consoles even since the crash of 83.

I get the desire to see garbage never reach storefront. Earth 2066 was shamelessly obvious exploitation that took the extremely low cost of development* to make a technically legal functional "game" and sell it sale. (and it's not the only one; Garrys Incident, The Forest, and dozens of others)

But at the same time, I now know better than to blindly buy anything. Shit, I don't even look at anything made in Unity now unless it has a lot of positive buzz behind it, like Kerbal Space Program.

(Unity is one of the largest contributors to the problem; it's dirt cheap to exploit on Steam. I estimate you only need to sell 250 units, tops, to break even purchasing the Unity Pro, working solo. 250 is a drop in the ocean for Steam's massive userbase.)

In summary: You can either do your thinking, or have someone do it for you.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't want someone to spoon feed me their recommendations. I'm not at all suggesting that Valve employ a team of guys to sit around playing all the potential candidates for Steam and then give the seal of approval. All I'm suggesting is that Steam have some standards and maybe some minimum requirements that games need to meet before being put on the platform. Filter out all the shit like Earth 2066 and the War Z before it even gets on there.

Alright. What requirements?
How do you ascertain that a game meets these requirements if nobody plays them before they go to market?
How do you enforce these requirements if nobody with authority plays them?

The answer is that you need exactly what you suggest against: A quality control team on Valve's payroll. And even that system is not without fault, as we've seen gobs upon gobs of shovelware shat out onto consoles even since the crash of 83.

I get the desire to see garbage never reach storefront. Earth 2066 was shamelessly obvious exploitation that took the extremely low cost of development* to make a technically legal functional "game" and sell it sale. (and it's not the only one; Garrys Incident, The Forest, and dozens of others)

But at the same time, I now know better than to blindly buy anything. Shit, I don't even look at anything made in Unity now unless it has a lot of positive buzz behind it, like Kerbal Space Program.

(Unity is one of the largest contributors to the problem; it's dirt cheap to exploit on Steam. I estimate you only need to sell 250 units, tops, to break even purchasing the Unity Pro, working solo. 250 is a drop in the ocean for Steam's massive userbase.)

In summary: You can either do your thinking, or have someone do it for you.

You don't understand. It's not about me, it's about Steam. With all this garbage perpetuating itself on their platform it's only a matter of time before people abandon it. It won't take many more Earth 2066's, War Z's and Garry's Incident's before this happens.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You don't understand. It's not about me, it's about Steam. With all this garbage perpetuating itself on their platform it's only a matter of time before people abandon it. It won't take many more Earth 2066's, War Z's and Garry's Incident's before this happens.

Then I'd suggest letting Steam worry about Steam, if it's not you or your thoughts.
Me? I can only speak for myself and my limited understanding of this absurd world I live in.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

You don't understand. It's not about me, it's about Steam. With all this garbage perpetuating itself on their platform it's only a matter of time before people abandon it. It won't take many more Earth 2066's, War Z's and Garry's Incident's before this happens.

Then I'd suggest letting Steam worry about Steam, if it's not you or your thoughts.
Me? I can only speak for myself and my limited understanding of this absurd world I live in.

I'm just saying a lack of quality control and standards could lead to Steam's downfall.

 

[cypher-raige]

Um Facepunch? Ya a guy that's only made one game or technically hasn't even made one yet with it still being in early access has a following? The community isn't any bigger then any other mildly popular online indie game.

Do you even know who you are talking about? Do you have any idea, any idea who he is? Basically, kind of a big deal.

Also Steams current "TOP SELLING" game is the forest, then there was how 7 days to died released, WarZ looks like GOTY now compared to the average "Early access title"

top seller on steam
http://youtu.be/Kkb4bKeCYSc

The game is in an alpha stage and will have bugs. If you don't want an alpha, don't buy it yet.
Most people who bought the game seem to like it as it has majority positive reviews on the store page.

 

[RavenTail]

He is entitled to quite a few things when he buys from Steam. A contract made between seller and buyers always automatically entails a few protections for both parties. To ensure that the seller gets his money in a timely fashion and that the buyer receives a product that worked as the seller advertised, within certain limits.

Steam IS the seller here, it can't just withdraw from any responsibility under the guise of *just being a virtual platform*. What Steam tries to do with its refund policies is to one-sidedly put the responsibility for a purchase on the shoulders of the consumer. That's not the way it works, contracts can't give all the rights to one party and all the responsibility to another.

Definitely not in the EU, where their policy of "no refunds" is simply illigal and in following the Steam forums, many people have been aware of that and have pursued their refunds from Steam for nonfunctional games successfully.

He is not entitled to anything from me, right? I don't know if you're an expert on EU law, but if I (an EU citizen in an EU member state) order a pizza on just-eat.dk (restaurants sign up and sell food of already questionable quality there and Just-Eat takes a 10% cut), and I am not satisfied with my meal and want a 100% refund, I'm entitled to it? And who should reimburse me. The pizzeria or Just-Eat? The pizza is right here, untouched and in the original packaging.

It's not that I want to defend bad business practice or that fastfood and digital PC game licenses are ecxactly the same. But they are similar in the sense that they are worthless once sold and that Steam and Just-Eat just provides the platform and takes their cut. In my experience Steam is cheaper than Just-Eat as well.

If you get your pizza with none of the toppings you had ordered, or if they didn't cook it, you would be entitled to a full refund.

Several games on Steam are unplayable pieces of shit, thinking that you are not entitled to a refund on something when Steam told you it would work, and your computer met the operating specs for it, is ridiculous (and illegal), yet that's what they try to claim in their TOS.

I assure you that there are more items on Just-Eat that are inedible, than there are games on Steam that are unplayable xD

And Just-Eat only has 24 restaurants on it within my location.

Dude, what does any of that have to do with blatant lying to consumers and the consumer not being able to get a refund?

Let me try and use the most simplistic analogy I can think of here...

I see advertisements for a Square shape, but after the purchase I discover it's actually a Circle shape.

That is the issue people are having with Valve's lack of quality control. That a developer can lie about their software (that non-material thing) and sell it for money (which is a very material thing), and Steam, the service that allowed the developer to sell this false product, takes no responsibility.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I'm just saying a lack of quality control and standards could lead to Steam's downfall.

Personally, I seriously doubt it will. Something much bigger than shitty Early Access titles will be required to end Steam given its huge user base.

Eventually, there will be a lull in this exploitation phase, when people finally get it through their thick skulls to not blindly click "Add To Cart" for every thing that passes their fancy on the front page of the store, just like how most gamers don't even bother with the rows of shovelware on store shelves today.

 

[Hateren47]

snip

The long and short is that you didn't buy a $60 game that doesn't work. You bought a license for software that indeed does work and you can play as much as you want for ever and ever. It doesn't run on your computer maybe but it does on mine. Therefore the license is still valid and you just don't have the hardware for it. You will get a better computer eventually and the license will still be there.

If you don't want software to be treated the same as hardware, why are you demanding it's sold on the same conditions when you can't protect the sellers or re-sellers rights under those conditions? They just have to take a financial hit from their customers inability to read specs and reviews, right? Because they can just send the license back to the license-factory to have it fixed for you twice before reimbursing you and selling it to some one else. You know, the right of the seller not to get screwed by opportunists that will destroy your business if they could without consequences.

I see advertisements for a Square shape, but after the purchase I discover it's actually a Circle shape.

Yes that's a fine analogy. Software is the same as hardware.

What actually happened is that you bought a virtual square peg for a very real hardware play box (with ethernet). Not the play box you own. You just made a random purchase and now you're stuck with it. That, in the world of software, is you problem. And this is fine. You wouldn't want it any other way if you actually like digital distribution of software licenses to be around. If you don't like it, instead of trying to destroy it, couldn't you just not use them?

Nope.

That exhibits a very limited and mistaken understanding of ownership.

What do you own when you buy a new computer with Windows? Anything more than the hardware? I think you have a limited understanding of software licenses.

I bet you would just as upset if developers dropped all the interesting things they are doing in 2014 and just dropped version 1.0 on a store and moved on to the next project just so you an have you refunds and they can still make their money. No updates, DLC's, expansions or even bug fixes. You know, like hardware makers can if they want to. If they get return items they can just take them apart and use the parts in their next game, right?

 

[Signa]

Secondly, metascores are worthless. If you ever based a purchase off metascores, your pretty bad at the whole educated consumer thing.

I have a fix for metascores that works pretty well for me. Hype compensation.

I gauge the game's hype levels, and compensate on a scale of -10 to +10. Games like GTA or Call of Duty get a -10 to their metascore, and that gives me a far more accurate representation of what I feel the game deserves. Flip that on some indie game that no one really talks about, and the +10 usually ends up being close as well. As subjective as game review are, there are some constants that people latch onto, and that's how games end up with positive or negative reviews. The metascore will always reflect that, because it's a score taken from multiple reviewers. Subjectivity is averaged out more or less, and that just leaves hype to be adjusted for.

 

[RavenTail]

snip

I see advertisements for a Square shape, but after the purchase I discover it's actually a Circle shape.

Yes that's a fine analogy. Software is the same as hardware.

What actually happened is that you bought a virtual square peg for a very real hardware play box (with ethernet). Not the play box you own. You just made a random purchase and now you're stuck with it. That, in the world of software, is you problem. And this is fine. You wouldn't want it any other way if you actually like digital distribution of software licenses to be around. If you don't like it, instead of trying to destroy it, couldn't you just not use them?

I have no issue with digital distribution at all. I use it often in fact. I have issue with developers/programers being allowed to lie to me and given resources to make finding out the truth of what they're trying to sell me harder and harder to find.

That is what Valve is doing with their lack of involvement: creating an environment for scam artists to screw people out of their money.

Valve can't, and shouldn't, be allowed to facilitate this then just wipe their hands claiming it's not their problem.

No one here is saying to destroy digital distribution. We are demanding assurance as a consumer.

 

[Vegosiux]

Guess what other people don't think the same as you and just because you don't think something is great doesn't mean others have to agree with you. Your opinion is just yours and the beauty of capitalism means other people can spend money on what they want.

I was talking about marketing and the advertising industry, specifically, the fact that advertising isn't about "letting people know about the product"; not about the quality of any individual product. Marketing is a science of behavioral manipulation.

Also, "people spending money wherever they damn well please" isn't a capitalism thing. It's happened way before capitalism rolled around.

 

[Hateren47]

I have no issue with digital distribution at all. I use it often in fact. I have issue with developers/programers being allowed to lie to me and given resources to make finding out the truth of what they're trying to sell me harder and harder to find.

That is what Valve is doing with their lack of involvement: creating an environment for scam artists to screw people out of their money.

Valve can't, and shouldn't, be allowed to facilitate this then just wipe their hands claiming it's not their problem.

No one here is saying to destroy digital distribution. We are demanding assurance as a consumer.

And now you want Valve to hire people to curate their market for you (against Valve internal policies to stick people into shit jobs and keep them there) or at least refund you if you decide that you don't like a game or program within 7/14/21 workdays, right? For what ever reason. Couldn't read the specs, don't like 3rd party DRM, you have malware or just poorly written software installed that won't give up a resource or access to a library so the game can't run. Who gives a fuck that you are already 10 hours into a 5 euro game and it's all Steams fault for not limiting your choices.

Doesn't matter, you have rights and digital resellers don't. Since software has all the properties hardware does we should treat it the same as hardware. Seems completely fair and not at all hindering for the whole software industry. /s

Good thing I'm not in charge of Steam as I would refund everything bought in the last 7 days and ban their account if someone quoted an EU law made in 1997, and asked for a second refund. And first refunds would only apply to Valve games, putting Steam on the same customer service level as Origin regarding refunds.

Do you also expect refunds on a CD's, movies on discs and games bought in a real life retail stores that you unsealed, opened and installed with key and everything, to be refunded if it's not quuuiiite to your liking? Stuff that is actually exempt from the EU law because they were not completely unreasonable in '97.

 

[RavenTail]

I have no issue with digital distribution at all. I use it often in fact. I have issue with developers/programers being allowed to lie to me and given resources to make finding out the truth of what they're trying to sell me harder and harder to find.

That is what Valve is doing with their lack of involvement: creating an environment for scam artists to screw people out of their money.

Valve can't, and shouldn't, be allowed to facilitate this then just wipe their hands claiming it's not their problem.

No one here is saying to destroy digital distribution. We are demanding assurance as a consumer.

And now you want Valve to hire people to curate their market for you (against Valve internal policies to stick people into shit jobs and keep them there) or at least refund you if you decide that you don't like a game or program within 7/14/21 workdays, right? For what ever reason. Couldn't read the specs, don't like 3rd party DRM, you have malware or just poorly written software installed that won't give up a resource or access to a library so the game can't run. Who gives a fuck that you are already 10 hours into a 5 euro game and it's all Steams fault for not limiting your choices.

Doesn't matter, you have rights and digital resellers don't. Since software has all the properties hardware does we should treat it the same as hardware. Seems completely fair and not at all hindering for the whole software industry. /s

Good thing I'm not in charge of Steam as I would refund everything bought in the last 7 days and ban their account if someone quoted an EU law made in 1997, and asked for a second refund. And first refunds would only apply to Valve games, putting Steam on the same customer service level as Origin regarding refunds.

Do you also expect refunds on a CD's, movies on discs and games bought in a real life retail stores that you unsealed, opened and installed with key and everything, to be refunded if it's not quuuiiite to your liking? Stuff that is actually exempt from the EU law because they were not completely unreasonable in '97.

You seem to think I want to take advantage of hard working developers who actually release a functional product.

I'm talking about the dishonest developers. The ones who lie and cheat people out of money. The people like Muxwell or Killjoy. They are using Steam's overly free market system to take advantage of people and Valve doesn't seem to really care.

I don't know where the notion comes from that software is so universally different than hardware. Break it down to the bare concept:

It's a series of components that work together to produce a function.

The same thing can be said about a toaster. The various components work together to produce a function, cooked bread.

Sure you can't hold data in your hand like a toaster, but much like the toaster we're buying that software for the function it provides, or is suppose to provide. That's where things get muddled for people like you.

You buy a toaster that is defective or lacks the advertised features, you return it for a refund. However if the software you bought doesn't work or lacks the features it promised, in your mind we all should accept this. We should accept this because it's software, pure and simple.

Not sure what lead you to believe software gets a pass on quality control while everything else under the sun doesn't.

Also, I don't know where you live but I can return DVDs and CDs that have been opened for a full refund. Even if I buy them from a store's online site. There use to be a time when you could do that for games too.

 

[Strazdas]

STALKER and FO3 are playable without mods too mate. Especially the patched STEAM versions, have no problems for majority of users.

FO3 is not playable, mods or no mods, on modern machines. the game engine simply refuses to run properly. its constant crashing with no solution. it works on hardware released circa FO3 release great. new hardware however does not work with it.

Also I think you are confusing betas with demos. Paid demos are definitely "retarded".

So is paid Betas. THEY should be paying US money to bug-test their game, not the other way around.

He is not entitled to anything from me, right? I don't know if you're an expert on EU law, but if I (an EU citizen in an EU member state) order a pizza on just-eat.dk (restaurants sign up and sell food of already questionable quality there and Just-Eat takes a 10% cut), and I am not satisfied with my meal and want a 100% refund, I'm entitled to it? And who should reimburse me. The pizzeria or Just-Eat? The pizza is right here, untouched and in the original packaging.
And the EU is wrong in this case if it is indeed as you say.

If you have reasonable complaints (for example pizza is not the same as advertised, like, ingridients missing, ect) then you have a lawful right to demand refund from the company you bought it, this case the owners of just-eat.dk. It is their responsibility to make sure that the food they re-sell is of advertised quality, and when they refund your money its their business to take it further to thier suppliers or not (likely a single fluke would just be written off as accidental loss, but if its repeated offender they may demand compensation).
And no, EU is not wrong, its just not freaking insane like steams refund policies.

It could also have been prevented by the original, unfiltered tagging system (had it existed at the time). "Bad Port" used to be an actual tag, and a useful one, until Valve culled it. It's absurd that Valve can quality control tags, but refuses to do so with its own inventory. I'm not asking for much, just a base level of assurance that things will function, or that I can return them. Again, they're losing to EA at this point. EA.

Oh, yeah, they totally messed up with tags. i mean "uplay" is a banned tag now, while "Ha ha ha ha spiderman" is not. dafuq? at least "uplay" was useful for knowing games that force you to use uplay.

What the EU does is to provide consumer protection through various legislation. Companies on the other hand try to hide behind various "Terms of Use" and "EULA's". In the end, the only thing that counts is the law.
And under that law, you have the right to cancel your purchase within 7 working days and receive a refund within 30 days.

Its worth noting that in EU EULAs and TOS has no legal power (that is, the company does not have a right to demand anything based on it) and laws supersede any agreement you make with a company, including contracts unless exception mentioned in law.

 

[Hateren47]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[Hateren47]

You seem to think I want to take advantage of hard working developers who actually release a functional product.

A reasonable expectation. Not you personally, but the collective "you" (or "us") would.

I'm talking about the dishonest developers. The ones who lie and cheat people out of money. The people like Muxwell or Killjoy. They are using Steam's overly free market system to take advantage of people and Valve doesn't seem to really care.

Alright... Gimme the Cliff's notes version of that fucking plane games development. Is that developer at the very worst anything more than a troll? He could be Jim Sterling genetically grafted onto Total Biscuit trying to troll Steam for all I know. Anyway, he seems to be pleased with his game. And I have seen it running so it does at least run. Because to me it seems like he is just so incompetent that his game should be removed for a variety of copyright reasons (music not licensed and code licensed only for educational purposes, at the very least) and not because it's just shit. If the dev fixes that though I don't see why the game should be removed. I'll agree that the store pages text should also be changed to reflect the game more accurately. But other than that the game does not lie about the fact that it's shit. It even has a video next to the shitty screenshots to show you how shit it really is. But on a very unrestricted platform like Steam that is to be expected. And I still vote that it should stay this way.

I don't know where the notion comes from that software is so universally different than hardware. Break it down to the bare concept:

It's a series of components that work together to produce a function.

So are secrets. Say if you broke the seal on a letter not meant for you. One could get in a world of trouble for that. Would it be within reason to demand you return and forget the secret? It's much too vague to provide an argument. If you disagree let me know why, though.

The same thing can be said about a toaster. The various components work together to produce a function, cooked bread.

Sure you can't hold data in your hand like a toaster, but much like the toaster we're buying that software for the function it provides, or is suppose to provide. That's where things get muddled for people like you.

Are you saying, and I'm really not supporting this game, that Air Control doesn't deliver the functions it provides? No the game does not live up to the sales pitch written on the store page. In broken English and definitely not by Steam, mind you. And that should be changed. But if you just look at the video and the pictures and reviews, it seems it does provide the same shitty experience in-game.

You buy a toaster that is defective or lacks the advertised features, you return it for a refund. However if the software you bought doesn't work or lacks the features it promised, in your mind we all should accept this. We should accept this because it's software, pure and simple.

Not sure what lead you to believe software gets a pass on quality control while everything else under the sun doesn't.

Also, I don't know where you live but I can return DVDs and CDs that have been opened for a full refund. Even if I buy them from a store's online site. There use to be a time when you could do that for games too.

I live in Denmark. An EU member state with low corruption in politics, that is generally seen as a reasonable place. Here you would not be allowed to return pretty much anything on a disk if the seal has been broken. Or in case of toaster even if the packaging is not in near perfect condition worthy of a re-sale. And that toaster mind you would been already been replaced by a similar or better toaster, if no similar toaster is available, before you have a right to demand a refund. Twice. And that seems pretty balanced to me.

If I'm not up to speed on Danish consumer law I would like to be corrected. I didn't bother to look any of this up. Also store policies might be more accommodating than you're entitled to. That is their business.

Another thing about toasters are that if the factory gets a toaster back they can change the power cable or whatever is wrong and wrap it up and sell the toaster again as new. Most like still at a profit. Would probably be easier to do with a simpler physical object not directly meant for food preparation but the point still stands.

Also I think you are confusing betas with demos. Paid demos are definitely "retarded".

So is paid Betas. THEY should be paying US money to bug-test their game, not the other way around.

I like Early Access so I disagree. Don't buy them if you don't like them.

He is not entitled to anything from me, right? I don't know if you're an expert on EU law, but if I (an EU citizen in an EU member state) order a pizza on just-eat.dk (restaurants sign up and sell food of already questionable quality there and Just-Eat takes a 10% cut), and I am not satisfied with my meal and want a 100% refund, I'm entitled to it? And who should reimburse me. The pizzeria or Just-Eat? The pizza is right here, untouched and in the original packaging.
And the EU is wrong in this case if it is indeed as you say.

If you have reasonable complaints (for example pizza is not the same as advertised, like, ingridients missing, ect) then you have a lawful right to demand refund from the company you bought it, this case the owners of just-eat.dk. It is their responsibility to make sure that the food they re-sell is of advertised quality, and when they refund your money its their business to take it further to thier suppliers or not (likely a single fluke would just be written off as accidental loss, but if its repeated offender they may demand compensation).

In the history of pizza delivery i doubt a single pizza has ever been delivered entirely as advertised. Like a BigMac never looks as good as it's advertisement.

I never bought a pizza from Just-Eat. They are an internet company. I bought it from Pepe through Just-Eat.

And no, EU is not wrong, its just not freaking insane like steams refund policies.

Right. I looked it up and at the very best you have 10 days to do it if a refund is even possible today according to Directive 97/7/EC since:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/rights-contracts/directive/index_en.htm
The Directive on Consumer Rights (2011/83/EC) replaces, as of 13 June 2014, Directive 97/7/EC on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts and Directive 85/577/EEC to protect consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises.

And The Directive on Consumer Rights says in

Article 14 about Obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal
paragraf (4) (The consumer shall bear no cost for)
section (b)(the supply, in full or in part, of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium where)
part (ii) (the consumer has not acknowledged that he loses his right of withdrawal when giving his consent.)

And as Steam has your sign away your rights to a refunds, and you agree to it before they charge you - I read that as you don't have the rights for a refund on Steam after June 13, this year, and you have to bare the costs. I'm neither a lawyer or a native English speaker so I could be wrong. And I'm not even sure what withdrawal actually means in the case of EU law. So if you want to tear into me over this one, be gentle.

The directive can be downloaded here http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011L0083&rid=1 and if that link doesn't work there is a working one in the link earlier in the post.

So we can agree that the EU is not insane in this case

Edit: Formatting and typos