Do we really have to jump automatically from "New policy has kinks that need working out just like ALL newly implemented policies do" to "Is Valve completely out of touch?"
Yeah, it might need fine tuning. I'd be surprised if it didn't. Why is anyone else?
Doom972 said:
If a game can be finished in under 2 hours and doesn't have enough replayability or post-game content to make people want to keep playing, it's not worth even a single dollar. If people can now get refunds for these games, then I see it as the system working.
Zeljkia the Orc said:
heres the sure-fire way to solve this problem:
Stop making shitty Indie games.
WOW.Mp4
If you game is under 2 hours long that shit had better be free because if you are going to put in the minimal amount of work into your game, then I'm going to pay the minimal price I feel your game is worth (namely, jack shit). Also I'm gonna love how those Indies are gonna put in DRM in their games, because DRM is completely flawless and it isn't like there are groups of people out there than can crack your DRM within a few days of your game being released.
On that note also, people have already said how much easier it is to outright pirate games instead of going through the refund process, if they have seen a massive uptick in refunds, then they probably have a 90-99% piracy rate for their games.
Possibly out of pitty for how bad their games are to begin with.
And do we really have to go through the "length is not a sure indicator of quality" speech again? I'm not saying it shouldn't factor into cost at all, and for less then two hours you'd really have to have one hell of a fried gold masterpiece to charge anything more then probably $5 at the very most. But are we really going with a game under two hours automatically has minimal work put into it?
A couple years back I picked up this tiny experimental thing called Dinner Date. You play as a man's subconscious as he slowly realizes he's been stood up for a date, through an array of little internal monologues and small actions. It was a fun little idea and I liked the execution well enough, and while it wouldn't make any personal top 10 lists I was happy to give it the two or three bucks or whatever I paid for it at the time. It only lasted about half an hour, and almost certainly would have started to overstay it's welcome if it had lasted any longer.
I hate to resort to such a tired cliche in it's defense, but what exactly is two or three dollars worth? A soda? A couple of minutes with a candy bar? Not a little glimpse into some small story or odd little mechanic or whatever? We're willing to pay almost ten dollars, sometimes more depending on the showing, to go see a movie for two hours, but a game tries to tell itself with the same pacing and suddenly it's automatically only putting the bare minimum of work in?
Now this doesn't mean that it can't also be a bad game. Bad games happen. A lot of people didn't like Dinner Date and I can certainly understand some, though not all, of the complaints. At the least it's not for everyone. But more often then not games are bad because of how they /use/ their length, not what they're length is. Games aren't shit because of what they are, they're shit because of /how/ they are what they are. That's what execution means.
For games under two hours that actually are by whatever measure 'good', I can see this being a real concern. I don't know that I have a good solution that doesn't also present it's own logistical problems. But it's definitely worth investigating, because why wouldn't it be?