Steam Adds Refund Option for Pre-Orders

[BrotherRool]

Max payne only took 7 hours to complete but it was good enough so i played it for 50. thats what long games mean - you can enjoy it for long, not that you need to grind through campaign for long. This is why i didnt finish Empire earth campaign - it was a grind. and why i spent 400+ hours in civilization 4 - it was fun.

Apart from some snark about firs-world problems, I haven't replied to the rest of your post, because this bit is really important and we could have just misunderstood each other from the start.

In my head the best games would be 8-20 hours long (with maybe optional content that can really stretch that out if you choose, like in Fallout New Vegas or presumably the Elder Scrolls games), but are good enough that you want to replay them. What I was talking about are games which literally take 30+ hours to complete and you end up 15 hours in realising you're going to have to spend another month of your life if you want to see the story through to the end.

If we were both talking about replay value, than I absolutely don't disagree with you. If were talking about physical campaign length then I'll go back and respond to the rest of your post.

Wow this went into first world problems really fast.

We're talking about videogames. Any problem you have is by definition a first world problem. I can count on the fingers of my foot the number of people who've said 'today is the worst day, the crops have been destroyed, I haven't eaten for weeks, my sister has malaria and Arkham Origins has really lazy boss battles. If you want to feel like you're talking about productive things then don't talk about videogames.

 

[Strazdas]

Apart from some snark about firs-world problems, I haven't replied to the rest of your post, because this bit is really important and we could have just misunderstood each other from the start.

In my head the best games would be 8-20 hours long (with maybe optional content that can really stretch that out if you choose, like in Fallout New Vegas or presumably the Elder Scrolls games), but are good enough that you want to replay them. What I was talking about are games which literally take 30+ hours to complete and you end up 15 hours in realising you're going to have to spend another month of your life if you want to see the story through to the end.

If we were both talking about replay value, than I absolutely don't disagree with you. If were talking about physical campaign length then I'll go back and respond to the rest of your post.

like i said games that take long artificially are just bad games and those are the games you are supposed to return once you realize it. Its not the campaign lenght itself that matters but how long you enjoy the game, hence why "able to return if less than 5 hours spent on the game" would work, since if the game is good you would want to spend more time on it, and why the 2 days one wont because some people can play for 20 hours in 2 days (i actually spent 24 hours on one game in last 3 days, and i wont have any time to spend on that game for next 6 days now).
Any game is optional. you dont have to finish it if you dont like the game.

We're talking about videogames. Any problem you have is by definition a first world problem.

Thats strange. and here i thought that here at 2nd and 3rd world we also had games. i guess i might have been imagining it.

 

[BrotherRool]

Any game is optional. you dont have to finish it if you dont like the game.

This is true, but it's also true that it's incredibly unsatisfying to not finish a game. If I played Final Fantasy X for the first 20 hours but stopped, then I get no satisfaction because I've missed 2/3rds of the game, on the other hand

We're talking about videogames. Any problem you have is by definition a first world problem.

Thats strange. and here i thought that here at 2nd and 3rd world we also had games. i guess i might have been imagining it.

No third-world countries don't have easy access to videogames. 79% of the third-world, 1.2 billion people, don't have access to electricity, if you think you're part of the third world, you're almost certainly wrong because I assume you're not going to a shop for your internet access right now (and even if you were that's still not really third-world).

Even in non-third world areas (say rural India), televisions are an absolute luxury and no-one will have one in their house, they'll have some cruddy TV in the village centre that people don't use.

And heck yeah is any problem about videogames a first-world problem. Being bothered that you're videogame isn't long enough is a luxury of people who don't have to worry about having no food to eat today

 

[Strazdas]

Any game is optional. you dont have to finish it if you dont like the game.

This is true, but it's also true that it's incredibly unsatisfying to not finish a game. If I played Final Fantasy X for the first 20 hours but stopped, then I get no satisfaction because I've missed 2/3rds of the game, on the other hand

i can understand that, i had same problems myself, however if we are being brutally honest here why continue playing a game that you dont like playing? if story is the only thing - you can read that one up, walktroughs and stuff gets posted everywhere nowadays, you can even watch it on youtube now. so its the experience of playing that matters and if your not enjoying it then why keep torturing yourself?

No third-world countries don't have easy access to videogames. 79% of the third-world, 1.2 billion people, don't have access to electricity, if you think you're part of the third world, you're almost certainly wrong because I assume you're not going to a shop for your internet access right now (and even if you were that's still not really third-world).

my country - a second world country - has the best internet in the world. so not everything is centered on first world. videogames exist in third world. they arent just go and buy one every week deal, but there are videogames and there are people that play them. videogame problems arent limited to first world, and just because the problems arent as big as some others in the world does not mean they are nonexistent.
what is a first world problem is complaining that your game is too good and you want to spend too much time on it.

 

[BrotherRool]

i can understand that, i had same problems myself, however if we are being brutally honest here why continue playing a game that you dont like playing? if story is the only thing - you can read that one up, walktroughs and stuff gets posted everywhere nowadays, you can even watch it on youtube now. so its the experience of playing that matters and if your not enjoying it then why keep torturing yourself?

It's not that I didn't like playing it for the firs 1/3

No third-world countries don't have easy access to videogames. 79% of the third-world, 1.2 billion people, don't have access to electricity, if you think you're part of the third world, you're almost certainly wrong because I assume you're not going to a shop for your internet access right now (and even if you were that's still not really third-world).

my country - a second world country - has the best internet in the world. so not everything is centered on first world. videogames exist in third world. they arent just go and buy one every week deal, but there are videogames and there are people that play them. videogame problems arent limited to first world, and just because the problems arent as big as some others in the world does not mean they are nonexistent.
what is a first world problem is complaining that your game is too good and you want to spend too much time on it.

As I said, I think you're severely underestimating just how much better off you are than a third-world country. Third-world countries do not have easy access to videogames. At a minimum 4/5's of the third world doesn't actually have access to any power to play the videogames on.

The second-world technically doesn't exist (it actually means the USSR and China), but what we understand as second-world is so much better off than the third-world. A billion people in the third-world can't read or write. 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. 1.1 billion people don't have access to clean water. 640 million children don't have access to a roof over their head. 121 million children can't go to school.

How can you suggest the people unable to read or write or access electricity or go to school, or even drink water without it poisoning them, can play videogames? Complaining that your unnecessary expensive source of entertainment is 'only' 5 hours long, or isn't quite fun enough whilst half a billion children don't actually have a place to live is always going to be first-world problem. If your country has access to those problems, congratulations on also being able to complain about the things you're absolutely priviledged to have.

I mean you were talking about paying $60 for a game, which means you get to spend on one item of entertainment 1/6 of the annual income of 1.3 billion people. I hope you don't mind, but I stalked your profile. You're Lithuania right? So I don't think that even counts as a second-world country. You've got a higher income per person than Poland and Russia. You're ranked as the very highest level on the Human Development Index [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index]. Your average personal income is in the highest income segment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_%28nominal,_Atlas_method%29_per_capita] of the world.

It might be hard for you to believe, but you live in a first-world country (be economic definitions, you actually did belong to the USSR I guess, but 'first-world problems' is an economic thing). You might be amongst the poorest of the first-world countries, but your problems are first-world problems. In fact in terms of percentage of the population who are actually poor, Lithuania is the 4th least poor country in the world. [http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=69] There are multiple of millions more poor people in the UK, people who are unable to buy more than $1.25 of stuff a day (including food)

 

[Strazdas]

i can understand that, i had same problems myself, however if we are being brutally honest here why continue playing a game that you dont like playing? if story is the only thing - you can read that one up, walktroughs and stuff gets posted everywhere nowadays, you can even watch it on youtube now. so its the experience of playing that matters and if your not enjoying it then why keep torturing yourself?

It's not that I didn't like playing it for the firs 1/3

then why are you stopping or complaining you got to play more of what you enjoy doing?

As I said, I think you're severely underestimating just how much better off you are than a third-world country. Third-world countries do not have easy access to videogames. At a minimum 4/5's of the third world doesn't actually have access to any power to play the videogames on.

The second-world technically doesn't exist (it actually means the USSR and China), but what we understand as second-world is so much better off than the third-world. A billion people in the third-world can't read or write. 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. 1.1 billion people don't have access to clean water. 640 million children don't have access to a roof over their head. 121 million children can't go to school.

while that is true it is not whole third world at all. nor does it have anything to do with the fact that there are people in third and second world countries playing games.

How can you suggest the people unable to read or write or access electricity or go to school, or even drink water without it poisoning them, can play videogames? Complaining that your unnecessary expensive source of entertainment is 'only' 5 hours long, or isn't quite fun enough whilst half a billion children don't actually have a place to live is always going to be first-world problem. If your country has access to those problems, congratulations on also being able to complain about the things you're absolutely priviledged to have.

now now lets not use falacy of relative privy here.

I hope you don't mind, but I stalked your profile. You're Lithuania right?

if i didnt want people to know i wouldnt have put it there.
yes im from lithuania.

So I don't think that even counts as a second-world country.

yes, it does. here is an image:

You've got a higher income per person than Poland and Russia.

if only that was true.....
the only countries in Europe that we are higher than are Bulgaria Rumania Ukraine and Belarus.

You're ranked as the very highest level on the Human Development Index.

indeed we made a very large step in this two years ago and we are high on it, but we are not the highest nor even in top 10.

Your average personal income is in the highest income segment of the world.

yeah, GDP per capita is not income. and GNI is slightly modified GDP (i should know, i work with GDP). real actual average income would be if you were to divide this by 2 or more. we have the lowest minimal wage in europe. We have recently raised it a bit and acording to our manfuactureres asociation that meant 60% of workforce had to be paid more. so 60% of our workforce earns 400 dollars per month (4800 per year). I am lucky to work for the government and have a job that pays 600 dollars a month.

It might be hard for you to believe, but you live in a first-world country (be economic definitions, you actually did belong to the USSR I guess, but 'first-world problems' is an economic thing). You might be amongst the poorest of the first-world countries, but your problems are first-world problems. In fact in terms of percentage of the population who are actually poor, Lithuania is the 4th least poor country in the world. There are multiple of millions more poor people in the UK, people who are unable to buy more than $1.25 of stuff a day (including food)

According to European Union 30% of our country populace is bellow poverty line. No idea how CIA count it but clearly they give my country much more leavway. millions of people should not be counted but rather percentage of population, because UK population is multiple times larger to begin with.

 

[BrotherRool]

i can understand that, i had same problems myself, however if we are being brutally honest here why continue playing a game that you dont like playing? if story is the only thing - you can read that one up, walktroughs and stuff gets posted everywhere nowadays, you can even watch it on youtube now. so its the experience of playing that matters and if your not enjoying it then why keep torturing yourself?

It's not that I didn't like playing it for the firs 1/3

then why are you stopping or complaining you got to play more of what you enjoy doing?

Oops I didn't complete the first thought. EDIT: I forgot again I can't even remember what my thought was now. I think I don't consider the story of games to just be about the cutscenes. The story of a game like FFX is about travelling the worldand making the journey. The story of Dreamfall is about walking around and looking at these fantastic and beautiful places. The story of CoD is about making that last stand as you're surrounded by hordes of Generic Middle Eastern Stereotypes, and the story of a game like Uncharted is about clambering over and through these ruins. So just watching the cutscenes passively on youtube doesn't give me that experience. But the gameplay has got boring after spending so much time with it, and moreover it's annoying me because I'm dedicating too much of my life to a single thing which isn't very important in the face of it. So I want closure, but I can only get that closure by actually playing and experiencing the journey of the game. But it's length means I either have to forget that closure and leave the experience hanging, or force myself to play something I'm no longer enjoying.

It's even true of non-story games, look at something like Devil May Cry, where the satisfaction comes from overcoming a difficult challenge. If you don't beat the game you don't get that satisfaction, but if you've just stopped because the game was too long, you're denied that satisfaction not because the game was too hard, but because it took up too much time

while that is true it is not whole third world at all. nor does it have anything to do with the fact that there are people in third and second world countries playing games.

now now lets not use falacy of relative privy here.

Not having access to electricity is hugely relevant to people in third-world countries playing videogames. And the portion of people in the third-world without any access to electricity is 80%, which means it's physically impossible for the vast majority of people in the third-world to play games. And of that remaining 20% a lot of them have minimal access to electricity, basically the ability to charge mobile phones etc which doesn't allow people to play videogames (maybe Snake and Tetris). I've been to second-world countries(of which you're not, I'll get to this later) where people are significantly better off and they still don't have access to videogames or even TV. Videogames are not a third-world problem.

Also the first-world problems is all about relative privilege. It literally means 'you live in a country so well of that these things seems like problems, when actually they're not when compared to the rest of the world.

So I don't think that even counts as a second-world country.

yes, it does. here is an image:

So the original first-world, second-world, third-world divide was about the political allegiances during the cold war. Broadly speaking being a second-world country in this sense means you're country is allied with communism. During the end of the 20th century, under this definition, Lithuania is a second-world country. Note that being 'third-world' wasn't about economic development, it just meant the country had no political allegiance (although this co-incided with a lot of poor countries, because they were too poor to have an influence on the war)

However the first-world problems meme is not related to that definition at all. A first-world problem isn't 'something that people in Russia or China don't experience'. It uses the modern definition of first-world as "high-income industrial countries." and it basically means 'these are problems that only occur in rich countries' A third-world country is a place of low-economic development and a second-world country is a growing economy.

If you look at the Human Development Index here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index], a third-world country is ranked 'low', a first world country is ranked 'very high' (Lithuania is very high) and a second world country is medium to high.

If you don't believe me that your map is no longer correct, notice that it ranks Brazil and Argentina as 'third-world' countries. Brazil, Mexico and Argentina are definitely not third-world countries anymore.

You've got a higher income per person than Poland and Russia.

if only that was true.....
the only countries in Europe that we are higher than are Bulgaria Rumania Ukraine and Belarus.

It's true of GDP and GNI

Spoiler

Luthuania has a GDP of 21,383 per person in 2012, Poland has a GDP per person of 20,562 and Russia has a GDP per person of 17,518
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
If you look at Gross National Income Per Person then the rankings are still the same. It might interest you to know that Hungary, Latvia, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Moldova and Croatia are all also lower than Lithuania (as well as the ones you named).

Straight personal income is harder to calculate and more out of date, but if you check out the list [http://en.classora.com/reports/s30614/ranking-of-countries-with-highest-per-capita-income] Lithuania had an average personal income of 14,097 compared to Russia's 14,037 and Poland's 12,708

I guess if you have a low minimum wage this is being skewed by a small amount of people in your country earning a lot above minimum wage

According to European Union 30% of our country populace is bellow poverty line. No idea how CIA count it but clearly they give my country much more leavway. millions of people should not be counted but rather percentage of population, because UK population is multiple times larger to begin with.

Oh it seems like the CIA was actual using national poverty lines which is a useless stat, sorry about that. In terms of the global poverty line ($1.25 a day), Lithuania has 0.16% if its population below it. This is less than countries like Brazil, Argentina, India, Mexico which I would consider to be economic second-world countries and a lot lot less than the third-world countries

 

[mattaui]

I solve my preorder problems by hardly ever preordering games and, unless it's the rare title or two per year I must have at launch, I don't pay more than $20 for a game, usually less than $10.

I do remember the good/bad old days of being able to return boxed games for exchange, and while it was amusing and convenient I knew the stores couldn't keep that up, as the system was simply too easy to abuse.

The few games I do preorder I try to do so through Amazon, as they've got a very easy cancellation policy. I've even had several preorder bonuses that still applied to my account when I changed my mind and cancelled.

 

[LadyMint]

I still wish they would offer some sort of store credit if you decide you no longer want a game. I understand the "no refunds" thing to try and prevent ripoffs, but I have definitely bought some games from them and only played for 30 minutes to 2 hours before deciding it was a waste of my time and money. Even if it was just a small percentage based off of what I originally paid, kept in my Steam wallet as credit, I'd appreciate that option far more than keeping a stack of unwanted games in my library.

 

[EyeReaper]

There's only three times I preorder:
A) when I'm absolutely sure I'm going to love the game
b) I have some spare cash for the Super Ultra Mega Deluxe Hyper Collection kit, and I only get that if there's some really cool feelies involved, like a tee-shirt, or nendoroids,
c) If its a ds game with a midnight release. All the Streetpasses!
Since none of these three things ever seem to happen with steamy preorders, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. Nice concept though

 

[Strazdas]

Oops I didn't complete the first thought. EDIT: I forgot again I can't even remember what my thought was now. I think I don't consider the story of games to just be about the cutscenes. The story of a game like FFX is about travelling the worldand making the journey. The story of Dreamfall is about walking around and looking at these fantastic and beautiful places. The story of CoD is about making that last stand as you're surrounded by hordes of Generic Middle Eastern Stereotypes, and the story of a game like Uncharted is about clambering over and through these ruins. So just watching the cutscenes passively on youtube doesn't give me that experience. But the gameplay has got boring after spending so much time with it, and moreover it's annoying me because I'm dedicating too much of my life to a single thing which isn't very important in the face of it. So I want closure, but I can only get that closure by actually playing and experiencing the journey of the game. But it's length means I either have to forget that closure and leave the experience hanging, or force myself to play something I'm no longer enjoying.

It's even true of non-story games, look at something like Devil May Cry, where the satisfaction comes from overcoming a difficult challenge. If you don't beat the game you don't get that satisfaction, but if you've just stopped because the game was too long, you're denied that satisfaction not because the game was too hard, but because it took up too much time

well, that is a choice, and not an easy one, but one that noone else can do for you. you have to decide whether you want to enjoy your gaming and move to the game you like playing, or play a game you dont like just to get closure. The refund option was meant if the game was bad from the very beginning anyway, and bad game has very low tendency for closure (unless its far cry 2 which i still finished despite thinking it was one of the worst games, ever)

Not having access to electricity is hugely relevant to people in third-world countries playing videogames. And the portion of people in the third-world without any access to electricity is 80%, which means it's physically impossible for the vast majority of people in the third-world to play games. And of that remaining 20% a lot of them have minimal access to electricity, basically the ability to charge mobile phones etc which doesn't allow people to play videogames (maybe Snake and Tetris). I've been to second-world countries(of which you're not, I'll get to this later) where people are significantly better off and they still don't have access to videogames or even TV. Videogames are not a third-world problem.

Also the first-world problems is all about relative privilege. It literally means 'you live in a country so well of that these things seems like problems, when actually they're not when compared to the rest of the world.

you do have a point here, so ill just leave that one. It was a apperently poor joke to begin with that seem to turn into major topic.

So the original first-world, second-world, third-world divide was about the political allegiances during the cold war. Broadly speaking being a second-world country in this sense means you're country is allied with communism. During the end of the 20th century, under this definition, Lithuania is a second-world country. Note that being 'third-world' wasn't about economic development, it just meant the country had no political allegiance (although this co-incided with a lot of poor countries, because they were too poor to have an influence on the war)

However the first-world problems meme is not related to that definition at all. A first-world problem isn't 'something that people in Russia or China don't experience'. It uses the modern definition of first-world as "high-income industrial countries." and it basically means 'these are problems that only occur in rich countries' A third-world country is a place of low-economic development and a second-world country is a growing economy.

You are correct, the definition has definately changed, hence why my country is a second world country - my country is classified as growing economy.

If you look at the Human Development Index here, a third-world country is ranked 'low', a first world country is ranked 'very high' (Lithuania is very high) and a second world country is medium to high.

HDI does not ran countries by first-third world. it has multiple measurements many of whom are unrelated to economy (such as acess to drinkable water, which would put us in high position merely by geographical location - my coutnry sits on huge water resources, and not because it somehow has better water supply created)

If you don't believe me that your map is no longer correct, notice that it ranks Brazil and Argentina as 'third-world' countries. Brazil, Mexico and Argentina are definitely not third-world countries anymore.

I do agree that Brazil and Argentina should probably be changed to second world countries, but i disagree about mexico.

It's true of GDP and GNI

so i looked furthere here and figured out why the data was changed. if you look at data at eurostat [http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMARK_DS-055480_QID_-C8D9C29_UID_-3F171EB0&layout=TIME,C,X,0;GEO,L,Y,0;UNIT,L,Z,0;INDIC_NA,L,Z,1;INDICATORS,C,Z,2;&zSelection=DS-055480INDIC_NA,B11;DS-055480INDICATORS,OBS_FLAG;DS-055480UNIT,EUR_HAB;&rankName1=INDIC-NA_1_2_-1_2&rankName2=INDICATORS_1_2_-1_2&rankName3=UNIT_1_2_-1_2&rankName4=TIME_1_0_0_0&rankName5=GEO_1_2_0_1&sortC=ASC_-1_FIRST&rStp=&cStp=&rDCh=&cDCh=&rDM=true&cDM=true&footnes=false&empty=false&wai=false&time_mode=NONE&time_most_recent=false&lang=EN&cfo=%23%23%23%2C%23%23%23.%23%23%23] you will notice there is a break in time series. what this means that there are factors based on which the information was recalculated. Now in this case it so happens that since i work with this i know why it was recalcualted, and the reason was because the national survey showed that we actually had 500.000 less population than we thought we had, which artificially raised all the measurements that go per capita. There will be more recalcualtions done later (this year according to plan) that will likely show a more realistic picture. It seems that poland done such recalculation as well, thougth i have no idea what was the cause of theirs. such breaks makes for poor data series, and its clear that they were the cause of us beating Poland. However i have to agree that this may be realistic, because there are rumors around here how Poland economy is dwindling (mind you, probably very biased rumors because many people here seems to hate polish, and with reason, but thats another topic).

You are corect about russia it seems, loosk like russian economy has been dragging more than i thought. time to open the champagne then (russia is considered national enemy number 1 here).

I guess if you have a low minimum wage this is being skewed by a small amount of people in your country earning a lot above minimum wage

We got people shouting that anyone who works for less than 5000 LTL (local currency, arond 2.4 LTL = 1 dollar) meawhile 60% of population works for 1000 LTL. the skew definatelly exists. realistically the average wage is bellow 2000 LTL, yet if we include everyone the mathematical average is 2800+LTL. Since the country is small and it has barrely above 1 million people total working, its easy for few rich people to skew statistics upwards.
We often hear that politicians tell us that "prices is rising to be like that in EU" but they forget that our wages arent even 1/3 of that of old EU countres (pre 2003 joining of most of ex-soviet countries). the gap between the west and east EU is still very large.
Though admitedly it is a bit cheaper to live here. the average rent here is supposedly 1000 LTL a month here according to latest statistics, but things like food and clothes are same prices as the rest of the world (and i hear food is actually cheaper in US).
However once again, GNI is NOT average income, its merely GDP with some alteration. Its one of those mistitled economic indicators.

Oh it seems like the CIA was actual using national poverty lines which is a useless stat, sorry about that. In terms of the global poverty line ($1.25 a day)

yeah national poverty lines can easily be out of whack due to whatever countries want to use. however a monetary amount one is also a bad measure due to pricing difference. i like the EU approach the best, they value it on nation by nation basis, however their measure is "person has to have acess to X items" and if he cant afford it on local prices that puts him in poverty category. that avoids both problems.
1.25 dollars a day is small considering our prices are similar to that of the first world countries. I think there is a big difference when same food product costs 5 times less in other place than here, so earning the same is not a good measure. That being said i could probably feed myself for that if i really went on a "cheap as possible diet" (which wont be healthy and id probably die in 10 years), but not much else. 1.25 dollars a day wouldnt be enough for public transport to get it to work even. the poverty line here is certainly above 1.25 dollars a day.

Capcha: i'm only human
well i may be human but that doesnt mean i dont need electricity!