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

[Doom972]

OT: 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.

So you would never buy a $60 game that you get less than 120+ hours of gameplay out of? Not many will make that cut. The policy should be tweaked a bit to combat gaming the system but yeah, the refund policy is definitely needed. Maybe track a game completion achievement and block the refund at that point.

Edit: I'm pretty sure my first play through of Portal didn't even take a full two hours, and I still consider it worth a solid $30 on it's own.

I wouldn't buy a game for $60 regardless of how much gameplay time I can get out of it.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Seems to me that the easiest all-around fix for the devs is, instead of selling an under-two hour game on Steam or threatening to bring back DRM, to sell it on Gog or Desura or XBLI or through your own site. If enough of these games are quality experiences, then Steam will eventually revamp their policy.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sure. And when same-sex marriage gets legalised in a region, same-sex marriages skyrocket as well. This would seem to be a no-brainer. You couldn't do it before. Now you can. This speaks nothing to the validity of the individuals acting. It's like...when you allow something...more people will do it...or something.

Personally, this might get me to start buying more games at a time where my purchases have slowed because both the indies and the majors have lost my trust. A refund policy if a game is broken or crap might get me to pry open my wallet more often. This is part of the reason I buy games almost entirely during big sales these days.

Sometimes I come across a game I really enjoy, and I actually feel bad for not paying full price. But often times, I feel like I've spent the proper amount or too much. Game devs and publishers have played too long with the "screw you, got your money" angle for me to spend more than a few bucks on a game without a damn good reason.

But, okay....

Elsewhere, other devs are considering more drastic measures. Cliff "Cliffski" Harris of Democracy and Gratuitous Space Battles has always proudly sold his games completely free of any sort of DRM, but is now worried about people simply buying his games, downloading them, getting a refund and then continuing to play them.

Alright, but that sounds like a very obtuse way to pirate a game. I'm sure there are easier ways, and you're already not using DRM. Why would they go to such lengths to pirate a game? I mean, am I missing something here? Someone want to clue me in as to why they wouldn't just go that route? Are there a lot of pirates who are Rube Goldberg fans?

 

[Strazdas]

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.

Hell, even if the game was total crap I wouldn't refund my $2, it's two fucking dollars for fuck sake, I'd have to have a personal vendetta against a developer to request my two bucks back.

Imagine how awful the game must be that people want their 2 dollars back?

You're right . it hasn't happened... can it happen? yes. You see the fallacy of history is that nothing happens until it happens . It's why people study history to get a better understanding of cause and effect relationships. Again if it's something that is adopted by the industry at large... gamers will have little choice. Either put up with it.. or take up reading, or samba dancing.

Larger influential publishers would love an excuse to justify tacking another $20 on new release prices. . Bundle two games that would have normally sold for $5 that works out to Bethesda pocketting a cool extra $10. THe thing is there are plenty of games on steam that are sold only in bundles I.e they have no individual listings. That's on of the things the publisher does. A two-pack is ironically a single product.

A god may go down from heaven and personally take you to hell. What "maybe if the world goes crazy could happen" is quite irrelevant here. Gamers are not idiots. they already proved it many times. this wont happen to any publisher that has a brain on his shoulders.

Define "Good". The irony is. It's more the 'Good Games' that will be hurt the most. But we'll see what happens when M#9 hits steam.

Simple. In this context a good game is a game that either is enjoyable enough to play for 2 hours (whether its that long or its replayability is irrelevant here) or is enjoyable enough that you want to keep it even if you played it for less than 2 hours.

A bad game is one that you want to get rid of within 2 hours.

"Nothing like that will ever happen" , "It will never happen" . Look through history and you always find someone always says that.. and is immediately proven wrong. You need to think in terms of cause and effect.

One very real change that's already happening is that more than a few games have had 'Offline Mode' support patched out. As a protection against abusers. Since steam can't keep track of time played when the game is run in offline or launched without the steam client (don't snicker near a third of steam games can actually be run directly from their install directory.). The Steam DRM is about to become much more obtrusive as more developers actually start implementing it fully.

Sure. Cause: Gamers are able to refund shit games. Effect: bad games will have less profit, good games unaffected.
Cause: shit games bundle with good games for price increase. Effect: noone buys that shit.

Every single one of those games made a mistake. people that wanted to get the game for free already could pirate it. noone is going to bother jumping through refund hoops when a far easier alternative is already possible. Steam DRM offer 0 protection against abusers like that.

Is it near a third now? last time i looked it was less than 5%. I guess it could have increased with the flood of shitty games that probably run on their own. And every single developer that implements it obtrusively will simply be shooting themselves in the foot. Not that i would want to support such a developer to begin with. Probably a lot of older games being sold helps there too.

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.

As it turns out, on Origin and GoG that do allow you to refund those games, people dont. so perhaps that would actually be true. Thats not really relevant though. If you have so little content that the player gets bored before 2 hour marker you shouldnt be selling your game. and no, there should be no exception for smaller games. these games being smaller is punishment enough.

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.

Well true, it wasnt saturated by crap cashins trying to actually profit from asset theft like it is today. The "one-man-team" things certainlly happened though. Its just that there was no centralized marketplace then, and so you had to actually look for them yourself.

There is no need for a centralized site for a market to be alive and well. There were people that self-published. For example the first graphic MMO in worlds history - Tibia (and yes, Ultima Online was a few months later, which was second) was made by 3 colledge students and ran in their basement. The game is still alive and working today.

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

Thats the opposite of fair. Whats fair is equal rules to all games, like it is now.

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.

Have you seen the game? its something i wouldnt download for free on my phone, let alone pay 2 dollars for. im surprised the refunds are ONLY 72%.

That wasn't my post... but it raises a point. And to answer your question you only have to look at Skyrim. The game got a tone of negative reviews around thepaid mod thing. Mind you these reviews had nothing to do with the game or the quality of the game. People were just giving thumbs down reviews bew cause they had a beef with a policy.


That I believe shows the general level of maturity. There are easily between 10-30 thousand such users on Steam. It may not seem like much taking into account the steam population but to a small indie dev.. 10K users pulling this sort of crap can and will break the bank.

Lets assume 30k users (your maximum estimate) and that it is 5% bad costumers. that would mean 600k total steam costumers. as we know, in 2014 Steam reached 100 million active users, in which case 30k means its only 0.3% of people. If anything, this would show that gaming community is FAR MORE MATURE than average business costumers.

and im all FOR breaking people that try to sell crap like Beyond Gravity. If Steam had quality control they wouldnt be there to begin with.

What the hell is wrong with some people (i.e. the ones going 'so what?') on this forum? Because a game doesn't take long to complete or doesn't have replay value, then people are somehow justified in shilling a game dev of 2 bucks? TWO DOLLARS. You're willing to steal (yes, steal, you got the experience and your money) for two dollars, and then justify it to yourself? Lets call a sheep a sheep here. You knew when you bought it that it wasn't a long game, or that the production values weren't going to be stellar. Nobody is buying a two dollar game and then going 'my god, this isn't what I was led to believe at all!'. This is just mean-spiritedness at it's worst and anyone defending ripping off small-time content creators seriously needs to rethink their life in general and their values in particular.

Indeed, what is wrong with some people that think shitty developers that shouldnt exist should be paid more attention to than gamers. if your game takes less than 2 hours and has no replay value you shouldnt be asking money to begin with. period.

And no, thats not theft. Look up the definition of theft. your flat out wrong here.

Yes, lets call sheep a sheep, these developers shouldnt exist. they are whats wrong with gaming.

 

[marioandsonic]

I understand some smaller devs having concerns, but I'd like to think that if you make a good game, you'll still make plenty of money even if some people do ask for a refund.

On a side note, I'm glad this refund policy came out when it did. I wanted to try and see how Arkham Knight will run on my PC when it comes out in a couple weeks. If it doesn't run well due to my computer, I'll just ask for a refund and buy it again when I get a new graphics card.

EDIT: Also, if it turns out to be buggy like Origins was, I'll ask for a refund and wait for the GOTY edition.

 

[RavenTail]

What the hell is wrong with some people (i.e. the ones going 'so what?') on this forum? Because a game doesn't take long to complete or doesn't have replay value, then people are somehow justified in shilling a game dev of 2 bucks? TWO DOLLARS. You're willing to steal (yes, steal, you got the experience and your money) for two dollars, and then justify it to yourself? Lets call a sheep a sheep here. You knew when you bought it that it wasn't a long game, or that the production values weren't going to be stellar. Nobody is buying a two dollar game and then going 'my god, this isn't what I was led to believe at all!'. This is just mean-spiritedness at it's worst and anyone defending ripping off small-time content creators seriously needs to rethink their life in general and their values in particular.

Wow. Did you even read what people wrote? No one did a Dick Dastardly laugh and said "yes, I'm going to finish these games and then get a refund". Now stop hitting that bale of straw and read what people are fucking arguing.

Considering the human race is mostly full of a-holes I can see some especially scummy people doing stuff like that. Remember a few weeks ago when that person made a fake 7,000 euro donation to a kickstarter? If anyone does abuse the system though they are absolute scum.

True, but it's still a useless statement. Yes, if people do this, that's a shitty thing to do. However, there's no evidence this happens on an appreciable scale, and even if that were the case, it's very arguable if that is bad enough to warrant taking away the rights of consumers.

Furthermore, I remember paying something like 15 euro's for Dear Esther because I heard it was a decent game. I was kind of disappointed when I finished it less than one and a half hours later. I would still have kept this game, since I found the game world fucking comfy and I still like to start it up and walk around that island once every few months, but I can totally see why people would feel ripped off by it and want their money back. These people did finish the game, but did so more or less by accident. Why is the act of finishing the game the one which should 'void the warranty'?

If someone buys a game, plays through it, and legitimately hates it I can see how they would want a refund. I'm not talking about those situations though. I'm purely speaking of people who would treat it as a rental service/abuse it. Buy a short game, finish it, and then ask for a refund whether or not they enjoyed the game.

There will always be those who abuse a system. They exist in every system everywhere. But putting strict regulations on a system like this only hurts the honest consumers in the end cause those who would abuse the refund system would simply turn the pirating.

It's like the whole DRM system, it's to stop pirates but in the end it just makes a hassle for legit buyers while the pirates still pirate the game.

You also have to consider if someone went in with the intent to simply return the game once they finished it, then they were never a consumer to begin with because they never were going to legitimately buy the game from the start. It would have been a non-sale whether they refunded the game or never bought it at all.

 

[Bat Vader]

What the hell is wrong with some people (i.e. the ones going 'so what?') on this forum? Because a game doesn't take long to complete or doesn't have replay value, then people are somehow justified in shilling a game dev of 2 bucks? TWO DOLLARS. You're willing to steal (yes, steal, you got the experience and your money) for two dollars, and then justify it to yourself? Lets call a sheep a sheep here. You knew when you bought it that it wasn't a long game, or that the production values weren't going to be stellar. Nobody is buying a two dollar game and then going 'my god, this isn't what I was led to believe at all!'. This is just mean-spiritedness at it's worst and anyone defending ripping off small-time content creators seriously needs to rethink their life in general and their values in particular.

Wow. Did you even read what people wrote? No one did a Dick Dastardly laugh and said "yes, I'm going to finish these games and then get a refund". Now stop hitting that bale of straw and read what people are fucking arguing.

Considering the human race is mostly full of a-holes I can see some especially scummy people doing stuff like that. Remember a few weeks ago when that person made a fake 7,000 euro donation to a kickstarter? If anyone does abuse the system though they are absolute scum.

True, but it's still a useless statement. Yes, if people do this, that's a shitty thing to do. However, there's no evidence this happens on an appreciable scale, and even if that were the case, it's very arguable if that is bad enough to warrant taking away the rights of consumers.

Furthermore, I remember paying something like 15 euro's for Dear Esther because I heard it was a decent game. I was kind of disappointed when I finished it less than one and a half hours later. I would still have kept this game, since I found the game world fucking comfy and I still like to start it up and walk around that island once every few months, but I can totally see why people would feel ripped off by it and want their money back. These people did finish the game, but did so more or less by accident. Why is the act of finishing the game the one which should 'void the warranty'?

If someone buys a game, plays through it, and legitimately hates it I can see how they would want a refund. I'm not talking about those situations though. I'm purely speaking of people who would treat it as a rental service/abuse it. Buy a short game, finish it, and then ask for a refund whether or not they enjoyed the game.

There will always be those who abuse a system. They exist in every system everywhere. But putting strict regulations on a system like this only hurts the honest consumers in the end cause those who would abuse the refund system would simply turn the pirating.

It's like the whole DRM system, it's to stop pirates but in the end it just makes a hassle for legit buyers while the pirates still pirate the game.

You also have to consider if someone went in with the intent to simply return the game once they finished it, then they were never a consumer to begin with because they never were going to legitimately buy the game from the start. It would have been a non-sale whether they refunded the game or never bought it at all.

I'm not saying they need to have strict regulations I just want the people who abuse the system to be punished. Someone who goes in with the intent to just finish the game and then get a refund on it to me are the people abusing the system. That just seems like a really cheap and scummy thing to do.

 

[Bat Vader]

Indeed, what is wrong with some people that think shitty developers that shouldnt exist should be paid more attention to than gamers. if your game takes less than 2 hours and has no replay value you shouldnt be asking money to begin with. period.

And no, thats not theft. Look up the definition of theft. your flat out wrong here.

Yes, lets call sheep a sheep, these developers shouldnt exist. they are whats wrong with gaming.

The problem with that though is that most of the stuff you listed is subjective. Shitty developers don't have any business making games or selling them but what constitutes a shitty developer though? Would the people that made Gone Home or Dear Esther be considered shitty developers? For as many people that hate those developers there are people who love them too. Same with replay value. I think Gone Home and Dear Esther both have good replay value while others think there isn't any replay value to be found there. I enjoy them too so I am happy giving the developers my money.

Who are these shitty developers that you refer to? Do you have any that you can name specifically? The only way for a developer to be considered shitty to me is if a majority who knows about them considers them to be terrible.

 

[jklinders]

Elements of this debate are actually starting to get ridiculous.

I can think of no other industry where it is considered acceptable practice to say to a paying customer "tough shit" if they paid money for a product that did not meet their expectations. Every possible argument against a refund policy has been years ago been tested and refuted by the food industry for example.

"Well you ate part or all of you meal so you don't get a refund." Well sure, but your service sucked and I got sick, next.

"well some other people liked my food." Well I don't, next.

"It cost money and time to make your plate." I thought it tasted like shit so your time and effort is irrelevant, next.

"Well if I can't get people to pay for my food I'll go out of business." You're problem not mine next.

The entire fucking retail and service industry learned these lessons years ago. Buyer beware is a shitty system. In every system that there are returns you are going to get a percentage of abusers. But the fact is, if you make a majority of your customers satisfied, you will do alright. As was stated many times, there are far easier ways to pirate a game. Ways that don't screw up your Steam Account. So the ball is finally in the court that it belongs in. I'll put this in bold. If you are charging money for a product you are accepting the laws of the business world and that means you must actually convince people that you are worth their money

everybody else has picked up on this. Now they need to join the real world that we are in.

 

[Strazdas]

Indeed, what is wrong with some people that think shitty developers that shouldnt exist should be paid more attention to than gamers. if your game takes less than 2 hours and has no replay value you shouldnt be asking money to begin with. period.

And no, thats not theft. Look up the definition of theft. your flat out wrong here.

Yes, lets call sheep a sheep, these developers shouldnt exist. they are whats wrong with gaming.

The problem with that though is that most of the stuff you listed is subjective. Shitty developers don't have any business making games or selling them but what constitutes a shitty developer though? Would the people that made Gone Home or Dear Esther be considered shitty developers? For as many people that hate those developers there are people who love them too. Same with replay value. I think Gone Home and Dear Esther both have good replay value while others think there isn't any replay value to be found there. I enjoy them too so I am happy giving the developers my money.

Who are these shitty developers that you refer to? Do you have any that you can name specifically? The only way for a developer to be considered shitty to me is if a majority who knows about them considers them to be terrible.

The shitty developers i refer to are ones mentioned in the article. As far as your walking simulator examples, you are correct that it is subjective. and it should be. You liked them and you would have kept the game. somone might not like the game and does not want to keep it. both cases are fine. before this policy only your case was possible. the other side did not have their legal rights protected.

 

[Ricardo Lima]

It was a good pro consumer move those complaining are whining mostly for selling low quality games who now have to meet purchasers expectations and offer quality instead of just promises.

Feel free to take your product elsewhere, Im surely giving my preference to steam and better games with this move. Consumers first. Deal with it.

That so many gaming sites and "journalists?" are not applauding this move show against their consumers both the media and some of these sub par developers have become.

 

[elvor0]

EDIT: Also, if it turns out to be buggy like Origins was, I'll ask for a refund and wait for the GOTY edition.

It shouldn't be, Origins was developed by WB Montreal, not Rocksteady....I have no idea what WB M did to the engine, but they fucking stuffed Origins up the wazoo.

 

[w00tage]

Elements of this debate are actually starting to get ridiculous.

I can think of no other industry where it is considered acceptable practice to say to a paying customer "tough shit" if they paid money for a product that did not meet their expectations. Every possible argument against a refund policy has been years ago been tested and refuted by the food industry for example.

"Well you ate part or all of you meal so you don't get a refund." Well sure, but your service sucked and I got sick, next.

"well some other people liked my food." Well I don't, next.

"It cost money and time to make your plate." I thought it tasted like shit so your time and effort is irrelevant, next.

"Well if I can't get people to pay for my food I'll go out of business." You're problem not mine next.

The entire fucking retail and service industry learned these lessons years ago. Buyer beware is a shitty system. In every system that there are returns you are going to get a percentage of abusers. But the fact is, if you make a majority of your customers satisfied, you will do alright. As was stated many times, there are far easier ways to pirate a game. Ways that don't screw up your Steam Account. So the ball is finally in the court that it belongs in. I'll put this in bold. If you are charging money for a product you are accepting the laws of the business world and that means you must actually convince people that you are worth their money

everybody else has picked up on this. Now they need to join the real world that we are in.

FINALLY. Software used to be covered under consumer protection laws like every other product. It used to be a box product you could return at the store. It was when companies managed to lobby their way into being exempted because computer technology was the future and they just needed some time to get big enough to survive and piracy was too easy yadayada that this whole screw-the-customer model got a footing. The result was decades of shovelware, crapass quality in all parts of the software industry, and outright fraudulent marketing (I'm looking at you, CGI trailers) to get an impulse purchase which couldn't be reversed. Because that approach gets you more money and costs less in development than creating a quality product that fulfills people's expectations. GJ government, your help has really paid off for us consumers.

I'll say it again - FINALLY. The most customer-abusive part of the software industry is being given a reality check by distributors, and customers are being reminded of what having rights means.

 

[babinro]

1) This is clearly a practice that creates far more good than harm. It?s staggering how slow Steam was to get on board with this basic and expected practice. Kudos.

2) Steam trading card abuse.
Buy a game?earn 3+ trading cards, abuse the marketplace system with your free money. When you consider the steps people will go to abuse the economy of an MMO then you can instantly see the problems here. I guess we?re to just assume Steam will ?police? this? Good luck. MMO?s has failed to do so for decades now.

3) Refunds should apply until 2 hours into the games OFFICIAL release.
Meaning that if your game was in early access for 2 years waiting on promises that may never come then people can still get full no questions asked refunds even if they?ve spent 3000 hours playing your game. That will give early access devs pause. The games are being sold on a promise after all. This refund policy would respect that.

4) I can sympathize with some dev concerns here. There is room for discussion on this issue but the solution will not be to remove refunds entirely. Games like One Finger Death Punch, plenty of visual novels, Five Nights at Freddy?s are short and satisfying experiences but ones that could be abused by consumers.

This change will undoubtedly lead to more GENUINE lost sales for certain types of games. I have no access to data to suggest just how big an impact this will have on genuine sales but I can see where devs might be legitimately concerned.

 

[whatever55]

okay so i just want to add my voice to the coir of people screaming bullshit. this is a ludicrous accusation and it's very irresponsible of the writer to fall into this fake outrage over a none issue.
also:
"Out of 18 sales 13 refunded in just last 3 days."
18 sales is statistically insignificant, it's an incredibly low number and is utterly meaningless. that's roughly 40 dollars worth of games? who cares? (well the indie dev of that game i guess, but other then that it's just a tiny tiny ass amount of money compared to steams daily revenue and insignificant into properly analyzing the move)

"Rate of refunds before was minimal"
it was zero, because steam wasn't giving any refunds, this is so misleading it hurts.
steaven you should care more about the quality of content you put out as well as it's veracity.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I should think that most people, if they really enjoy your short game, will want to keep it in their library in case they want to come back to it. If your game is good, people are going to keep it.

I don't know why anybody would moan about the most consumer friendly thing Valve has done in years. Anyways, I'm sure someone has already linked the TB video utterly debunking this (even further than Jim's video), but I might as well leave it here:

 

[whatever55]

3) Refunds should apply until 2 hours into the games OFFICIAL release.
Meaning that if your game was in early access for 2 years waiting on promises that may never come then people can still get full no questions asked refunds even if they?ve spent 3000 hours playing your game. That will give early access devs pause. The games are being sold on a promise after all. This refund policy would respect that.

there have actually been multiple reports of people returning games bought a long long time ago. basickly even if a game does no fit the bill (less than 2 hours and 2 weeks) you can still try to refund it and you might be able to.
it'll be interesting to see just how pro consumer steam is willing to be. a good example is spacebase DF9 was imho a clear cut case of an early release game selling false promises and then ditching its customers. will steam be willing to refund on that?
another case clearly is AC unity, a game that STILL will no run well on any pc known to man (or console, or anything else), will steam allow mass refunds of that game?
this sort of early decisions are really going to shape the future.

 

[Frankster]

This article and stats used has been debunked by both jimquisitions and total biscuit, as well as the narrative that small devs are universally against refunds.

And Cliff Harris is an idiot, it's far easier and faster to just pirate a game then it is go jump through the hoops of getting refunded.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

What kind of non-sense DRM are they supposing they'll put in that won't allow customers to get refunds on steam? I would venture to say that he's taking the piss by bringing up DRM at all in a completely unrelated conversation.

The DRM, in this case, is because Gratuitus Space Battles doesn't use Steam's native DRM.

As in, you could pay for the game, download it, move the files somewhere else on your computer, refund the game, then play the copy you made. Essentially, you could use Steam to pirate the game. Hence, DRM.

 

[MonsterCrit]

You're right . it hasn't happened... can it happen? yes. You see the fallacy of history is that nothing happens until it happens . It's why people study history to get a better understanding of cause and effect relationships. Again if it's something that is adopted by the industry at large... gamers will have little choice. Either put up with it.. or take up reading, or samba dancing.

Larger influential publishers would love an excuse to justify tacking another $20 on new release prices. . Bundle two games that would have normally sold for $5 that works out to Bethesda pocketting a cool extra $10. THe thing is there are plenty of games on steam that are sold only in bundles I.e they have no individual listings. That's on of the things the publisher does. A two-pack is ironically a single product.

A god may go down from heaven and personally take you to hell. What "maybe if the world goes crazy could happen" is quite irrelevant here. Gamers are not idiots. they already proved it many times. this wont happen to any publisher that has a brain on his shoulders.

We're talking about the same gamers that pay premium $60 on launch day for a game that'll be $50 or so in about a month. The ones that basically pre-order games sight unseen for special exclussive skins?. Not idiots?

Look if gamers weren't idiots you wouldn't pay more than $40 for a game.