Smaller Devs Abused By Steam's "No Questions Asked" Refund Policy

[Lightknight]

Steam definitely needs to reduce the time frame on smaller games. Something that is only two hours long should have something like a 30 minute refundable window, not two hours. That just makes sense.

Absolutely not. Two hours is too small as it is. You can spend 2 hours trying to launch a broken game easily. What needs to happen is developers stop making shit games that people want to refund instantly. it does not matter how long the game is, if its good people wont be refunding.

That's not true. You're telling me people won't be tempted to get a refund on a $60 game after they've finished it? People absolutely do that and did that back with EB games had a one week return policy. It was practically issuing a challenge for people to finish a game in that time frame to be able to get the money back to buy another one. That's why the policy ended.

I'm not talking about reducing two hours for larger/longer games. I'm talking about reducing the time for smaller games that can be finished in less than the two hours.

Nonsense. Indie market was alive and well before steam even existed. It just didnt try to sell asset swap crap everywhere because it knew it wont fly.

No, the indie market wasn't. It was nothing like it is today. Perhaps you could make the argument for relatively small studios but nothing like the incredibly small teams that produced games like Super Meat Boy, Braid, FTL and all the big indie titles now.

Not only that, but there really hasn't been an iOS market for that long either. So where do you believe the indie games market was thriving before Steam created a unified platform for PC? Some backwoods site that you found and enjoyed but no one else knew about?

Indie in the 90's-00's was just a small studio that still had a publisher (aka, not an Indie study by today's standards).

It's only with steam where getting their work on Steam is all the "publisher" they need.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Stop making shitty Indie games.

Your full post mentions game length as a deciding factor, but I'd have to disagree. I'd pay the asking price for any competently-assembled indie project regardless of the game's overall length, but I'd say the "shitty games" you're referring to would have to be the Unity Engine fodder that's clogging Steam Greenlight.

Steam's new refund policy would kill the legion of me-too devs that settle with buying example asset packs from the Unity Store and then repackage them; it would destroy the parts of the Steam market that are inarguably shitty, with quality standards that are insulting even to the most casual of gamers - the Day Ones, Unturneds and Slaughtering Grounds of Greenlight.

If a few decent outfits have to pay the price for the dozens of leeches that are sure to see their profit margins gutted, I'm all for it.

 

[Sylveria]

...man, after reading all these comments I'm understanding how Ert decided on a 'fuck it!' approach to things now... god damn.

Anyway, totally called this happening. As lovely as the Steam refunds are and as sorely needed as they have been, they've been poorly implemented (as is usual for Steam at the moment - what's up with that?) and are just a band-aid solution for it's bigger problem, which is an abhorrent lack of quality control. It's basically going 'Oh, we know there's lots of shitty games on the market, so it's up to you the consumers to deal with it' instead of what they should be doing, which is 'Alright, you fuckers gotta meat this quality standard or you're out of here'.

What's "quality" is too subjective though. I'm very fond of some games that have been considered as bad or worse than Superman 64 by certain out of business review sites. And I'm not fond of them ironically, I think they're perfectly passable titles. They have no bugs and function fine, but, their content is objectionable to some. The only way to make an objective measure of quality in this sort of platform would be "it mostly works," and that doesn't solve the problem of people putting out shovel-ware and half-finished drivel.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Snip.

Snap.

Actually I don't contradict myself with my edit, however as CrystalShadow points out I very likely failed to properly communicate my point.

My point is that I'm all for refunds. It's good that we're finally getting because as consumers we deserve the right to purchase with confidence and have a safeguard against being ripped off.

What I was trying to express, however, was that I wish there was a way to ensure that honest small devs wouldn't get screwed over by players essentially renting their games for free. I'm not even trying to imply that's happening at the moment, just saying that this current system is open to such abuse.

You suggested that devs who price their games below $5 be immune to refunds, which is the opposite of saying you are "all for refunds". Making certain games ineligible for a refund is not a balance.

 

[BayouStalker]

When you sell your game for two dollars, and people still want a refund after that, that should be taken as a sign you need to improve rather than it being people trying to steal it. If people want to steal your game they will, most won't want to go through the effort of a refund to do so as it takes time to get the money back.

Notice though, how they only ones who are afraid are the asset flippers/shovelware/poorly implemented ports/ones who outright overprice their games in early access.

If people like your game, they will not get a refund, if they abuse the system, they would have gone through the easier venues to do so. They have already said they will be monitoring abuse trends to see where they have to make modifications.

As to saying DRM is needed? That is like trying to help yourself walk by shooting yourself in the foot just to get a cane. It just hurts you in the long run.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip.

Snap.

Actually I don't contradict myself with my edit, however as CrystalShadow points out I very likely failed to properly communicate my point.

My point is that I'm all for refunds. It's good that we're finally getting because as consumers we deserve the right to purchase with confidence and have a safeguard against being ripped off.

What I was trying to express, however, was that I wish there was a way to ensure that honest small devs wouldn't get screwed over by players essentially renting their games for free. I'm not even trying to imply that's happening at the moment, just saying that this current system is open to such abuse.

You suggested that devs who price their games below $5 be immune to refunds, which is the opposite of saying you are "all for refunds". Making certain games ineligible for a refund is not a balance.

I then immediately go on to say "This system wouldn't work." If you're going to reference things I said, please use the entire context rather than cherry-picking.

 

[gigastar]

Lo and behold, i bring you TotalBiscuit on the "issue".

Spoiler

 

[gigastar]

Lo and behold, i bring you TotalBiscuit on the "issue".

Spoiler

Don't forget the tumblr post where he puts the quotes from all the indie game developers he asked questions of.

Wouldnt know about that since i avoid Tumblr. Thanks for the tip though.

 

[CaitSeith]

There has been referencing the Jimquisition a lot. Now I'm referencing his audio show: The Podquisition [http://www.thejimquisition.com/2015/06/podquisition-episode-28-fallout-4-and-torture-porn/]. In there, his collaborator, Laura, confessed that she used to abuse that kind of refund policy (buying a game, finishing it and returning it to the store for a full refund) as a kid; and she will do it now on Steam to test how abuse-proof the new system is.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Snip.

Snap.

Actually I don't contradict myself with my edit, however as CrystalShadow points out I very likely failed to properly communicate my point.

My point is that I'm all for refunds. It's good that we're finally getting because as consumers we deserve the right to purchase with confidence and have a safeguard against being ripped off.

What I was trying to express, however, was that I wish there was a way to ensure that honest small devs wouldn't get screwed over by players essentially renting their games for free. I'm not even trying to imply that's happening at the moment, just saying that this current system is open to such abuse.

You suggested that devs who price their games below $5 be immune to refunds, which is the opposite of saying you are "all for refunds". Making certain games ineligible for a refund is not a balance.

I then immediately go on to say "This system wouldn't work." If you're going to reference things I said, please use the entire context rather than cherry-picking.

The point is that you want to find a way to not be "all for refunds" whilst also claiming you are all for refunds.

Fact is, if I buy a widget that isn't worth the $4.99 I paid for it most stores will take it back and they won't care if a small manufacturer made it. Most recently I took a 2 day old PS4 back to Wal Mart because it stopped outputting a video signal (audio was fine). The only 2 questions they asked were "do you want a refund or an exchange" and "is there anything wrong with it". No bullshit return policies are what consumers expect outside of video games and it should be no different for video games.

 

[vallorn]

If these "Smaller Devs" are being abused by this, they are the only ones. The total number of owned games on Steam has been skyrocketing since people were given the ability to take risks on purchasing games...

 

[Tradjus]

How about no refunds on games under five bucks?
Seems fair to me. o3o

 

[WeepingAngels]

How about no refunds on games under five bucks?
Seems fair to me. o3o

Why is that fair? Are you saying it's ok to release trash and sell it without customer recourse as long as it's below $5?

 

[gigastar]

How about no refunds on games under five bucks?
Seems fair to me. o3o

Its one thing to hit everyone with consumer-initatied automatic refunds, its quite another to do that then leave the door open for the kind of "developers" that publish Unity asset packs as a released game.

So not only is that idea not fair, its utterly retarded.

 

[JayRPG]

What strikes me as the worst thing is that there are people out there so incredibly petty that they need their two dollars back after (most likely) fully completing the game they paid two freaking dollars for.

If they didn't like it, why should they be forced to keep it?

Again.. because I'm a reasonable and sane person, the game would have to be downright unplayable, or have been insanely misrepresented before I purchased it (which would make me dislike the developer) for me to get a refund on a measly 2 dollars.

That is not the case with one of the examples in the original post, Beyond Gravity, which actually has favorable reviews and a good steam reputation. 89% positive reviews from 616 reviews total but as soon as the refund policy goes live it has a 72% refund rate? please. I don't think it has anything to do with people not liking it.

It is either A. petty scum buying it, finishing, and refunding it or B. people who are buying it but only to try it out and are immediately refunding it.

At the end of the day, it is $2, both groups (A and B) are wrong, if you are so hard up that that two dollars means your quality of life hangs in the balance, you should not be buying games in the first place.

Disclaimer: I am for the refund policy, I'm not even that concerned about steam's implementation, or the 2 weeks/2 hours rule, I just assumed that people were generally pretty reasonable and wouldn't abuse the system in such a petty, pathetic way.

This shouldn't be used as some full game trial service, and people shouldn't be refunding pathetically small amounts from small indie devs when they delivered exactly what they described on the game page.

You absolutely should get a refund on any game that is unplayable (due to mechanics, or bugs), misrepresented (described as an open world third person shooter but it's actually a first person physics puzzle game), or offends you in some way etc

 

[The Bucket]

How about no refunds on games under five bucks?
Seems fair to me. o3o

Games that cost less than 5 dollars are some of the most in need of consumers having recourse in the form of a return, look at some of the dreck that's come on Steam since they opened the floodgate

EDIT:

What strikes me as the worst thing is that there are people out there so incredibly petty that they need their two dollars back after (most likely) fully completing the game they paid two freaking dollars for.

If they didn't like it, why should they be forced to keep it?

Again.. because I'm a reasonable and sane person, the game would have to be downright unplayable, or have been insanely misrepresented before I purchased it (which would make me dislike the developer) for me to get a refund on a measly 2 dollars.

That is not the case with one of the examples in the original post, Beyond Gravity, which actually has favorable reviews and a good steam reputation. 89% positive reviews from 616 reviews total but as soon as the refund policy goes live it has a 72% refund rate? please. I don't think it has anything to do with people not liking it.

It is either A. petty scum buying it, finishing, and refunding it or B. people who are buying it but only to try it out and are immediately refunding it.

At the end of the day, it is $2, both groups (A and B) are wrong, if you are so hard up that that two dollars means your quality of life hangs in the balance, you should not be buying games in the first place.

Disclaimer: I am for the refund policy, I'm not even that concerned about steam's implementation, or the 2 weeks/2 hours rule, I just assumed that people were generally pretty reasonable and wouldn't abuse the system in such a petty, pathetic way.

This shouldn't be used as some full game trial service, and people shouldn't be refunding pathetically small amounts from small indie devs when they delivered exactly what they described on the game page.

You absolutely should get a refund on any game that is unplayable (due to mechanics, or bugs), misrepresented (described as an open world third person shooter but it's actually a first person physics puzzle game), or offends you in some way etc

That 72% return rate is composed of less than 20 sales, you cant make any kind of judgment or conclusion about the usage of the returns policy by the Steam community from such a minute insignificant sample.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

This shouldn't be used as some full game trial service, and people shouldn't be refunding pathetically small amounts from small indie devs when they delivered exactly what they described on the game page.

You absolutely should get a refund on any game that is unplayable (due to mechanics, or bugs), misrepresented (described as an open world third person shooter but it's actually a first person physics puzzle game), or offends you in some way etc

Developers are allowed to make demos for their games and make them freely available to try. But they don't. If they don't want people to do things like this, they shouldn't be making black boxes for people to put their money into and then crying when people want to make sure they want a game before they buy it.

 

[Gatlank]

If these "Smaller Devs" are being abused by this, they are the only ones. The total number of owned games on Steam has been skyrocketing since people were given the ability to take risks on purchasing games...

Spoiler

It nullifies the risk of the game not working in the system. I didn't bought a couple of games because of that and if you can ask for a refund in physical stores when you don't like or the game doesn't work, why shouldn't be allowed on Steam?
Drama queens gotta make drama.

 

[deathzero021]

The thing people need to realize is: not every game is worth any money. Beyond Gravity is a shallow, boring, repetitive game that barely has any worth. Of course most people are getting refunds, this new policy now let's people at least try games they would have other wise never even gave a second thought about. This policy hopefully will crush developers of poor quality games or games that simply have no audience on PC. Beyond Gravity might do well on an app store on android or something but as a PC title there is no interest for something like that. Some developers lack parts of their brain and so they put up their mobile games on PC hoping for the same sales figures, it seems these devs will have to learn the hard way.

Also to the writer of this article: just how hard are you trying to spin this against Valve? Are you anti-consumer? How could allowing refunds ever be a bad thing for PR? Your intelligence level needs a level up.

 

[CaitSeith]

MonsterCrit
I think this execution on steam, is right for abuse by petty gamers with minor gripes. The fact that Steam offers refunds in EU, AU and UK, and was at around 1%, yet immediately jumped to 17% this quickly, only serves to reinforce my beliefs.

Now the important question: is how many gamers in Steam are petty and have minor gripes? And how many aren't? I've heard that in business usually 80% of the customers are good, 5% are bad, and the rest is in between.

EDIT: Sorry, MonsterCrit. Wrong quote.