Steam Refunds
Surprised there wasn't a thread on this subject that started to make the rounds on the Interwebs. So, two pro-consumer videos from Jim Sterling and Totalbiscuit:
[ame]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPUToCNq-iA[/ame] and [ame]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-0dgDsCtw[/ame]
And the Escapist, providing a contrasting take: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/141074-Small-Indie-Devs-Struggling-With-Steam-Refunds
So my two cents? It's about time Steam got with the program on refunds - it should've been something they've done a long time ago, seeing as it also makes sense that many European countries literally mandate refunds.
So the good: Liberal, no frills, refund policy. The bad? Possibility of abuse against smaller devs and it hasn't had enough time so we can collect and analyze the overall data.
As for game devs? I think it's overall a good thing, because over the last couple of years, Steam has become sort of a mockery for allowing under baked, asset-assembled Unity games or just plain terrible games on the market. In order for a free market to function as well, the consumer needs a method of spiting bad products, practices, or simply, products that don't work as advertised.
The few developers going after the policy, such as the mentioned Qwiboo games, are sorta providing weak or unsubstantiated evidence, and most reviews and perception of its games being pretty much sodding stuff.
My take is that the refund policy will have teething problems, but once patterns and trails of abuse are eventually dealt with, we'll now see a more consumer minded form of quality control take hold. And for us, I think it's a good thing as bad practices are now exposed to a proper degree of rectification.
[ame]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPUToCNq-iA[/ame] and [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-0dgDsCtw[/ame]And the Escapist, providing a contrasting take: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/141074-Small-Indie-Devs-Struggling-With-Steam-Refunds
So my two cents? It's about time Steam got with the program on refunds - it should've been something they've done a long time ago, seeing as it also makes sense that many European countries literally mandate refunds.
So the good: Liberal, no frills, refund policy. The bad? Possibility of abuse against smaller devs and it hasn't had enough time so we can collect and analyze the overall data.
As for game devs? I think it's overall a good thing, because over the last couple of years, Steam has become sort of a mockery for allowing under baked, asset-assembled Unity games or just plain terrible games on the market. In order for a free market to function as well, the consumer needs a method of spiting bad products, practices, or simply, products that don't work as advertised.
The few developers going after the policy, such as the mentioned Qwiboo games, are sorta providing weak or unsubstantiated evidence, and most reviews and perception of its games being pretty much sodding stuff.
My take is that the refund policy will have teething problems, but once patterns and trails of abuse are eventually dealt with, we'll now see a more consumer minded form of quality control take hold. And for us, I think it's a good thing as bad practices are now exposed to a proper degree of rectification.
Replies
However, I'm hearing its not good for small devs at all!
Indie Developers Report Steam Refund Abuse From PC Gamers, Show Graphs To Back Their Claims
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/indie-developers-report-steam-refund-abuse-from-pc-gamers-show-graphs-to-back-their-claims/
I feel there should be a cutoff point that the Devs dictate themselves. When you buy the game if informs you how much content you are allowed before going past the cutoff (in T&C's)...or, While you play the game when you reach that wall you should get a pop up or something "do you wish to continue, if so you wont get a refund"....something along those lines, could break imersion depending on the game type but it could also prompt people to think "actually, yes, i'll have a refund". Anyhoo,If an Indie Dev creates a game that can be finished in 2hrs they should be able to dictate when the "refund wall" is.
I haven't looked too much into that case, but I heard
But I could see a more pragmatic refund window being implemented for games under a certain price point, since a lot of indy games aren't very long to begin with.
There are definitely going to be people that try to abuse the system to get free game experiences (buy a game, beat it in an afternoon, return it, repeat) but I suppose those same people probably just pirated games before anyway.
Overall this isn't a bad thing for any developers. Developers can no longer profit off of people that purchased their game by taking a gamble, but this is offset by the fact that now more and more people will start picking up random indie games since the customer risk has been removed.
The only problem I can see now is that people will buy a game, review it, then return it. This could easily be used to create a large amount of negative reviews for games. People could probably also do this to "threaten" developers in order to get free keys or other things.
If Valve were to remove all reviews written by people who returned a game, then all negative reviews would disappear since most people who hate a game enough to write a review would jump at the chance of getting a full refund. It's a complicated issue I think.
The only place I see a problem is with episodic content. An episode of Life is Strange takes around two hours to finish.
Suprised this isn't more of a powder keg.
I dont agree at all. I've bought games that can be finished within 2hrs and they are better than a lot of games that take 30+hrs, and generally they are way cheaper. A game shouldn't be considered good or bad because of it's gameplay length, it should be about its content and the experience the player gets from it. If I have a great time within 30mins and i've paid a fair price, thats way better than slogging through 30+hrs only to be disappointed by a terrible ending or mediocre gameplay. The long games that take 30+hrs usually ramp up very slowly, it takes 2 hours to get through some tutorials areas these days.
the 2hr limit is mostly going to effect those devs that have shorter games. I agree that games under $5 or so should be exempt. Or as I say the devs themselves should get a say it how much content a player gets before going beyond the refund limit.
I fully support short but sweet games, Dear Esther, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, again Life is Strange, but as a creator you have to realize there are certain marks you have to hit if you want to make serious money, the most polarized of which are annualized AAA titles like COD.
Short games usually have length listed as a con in reviews anyway, at least now people on the fence can try it risk free.
Maybe I am not being super clear with what I mean, but basically the way I see this is people will try your product and return it if they don't like it. That's a huge win for good developers and good games, especially "Diamonds in the rough" where players see a limited number of good reviews but are nervous about getting screwed. Developers who have games that don't live up to expectations will suffer. Some people will abuse the system, but some people will just pirate your game... so it isn't like we're short on assholes. You can't defend your game against abusers and pirates, but smart developers can profit.
Now that said, this will likely change what kinds of games get developed. Maybe it was possible to have a great game that was 1 hour long and cost a dollar. Now they'll have to do it in such a way as not to allow refunds (there are ways to do this). It's a kinda big penalty for short games or games that have niche appeal, as before they'd get a lot of curiosity purchases (especially during deep discounts).
This is probably what Puppy Games is seeing. Their games are very niche and when on sale, sell well because a lot of people think they like that kind of game - but very few of us realize just how damn frustrating Robotron is (As an example of one of their games' inspirations) - It isn't that Puppy Games makes bad games (In fact, they make great games) - it is that they have a style and type of games that is fueled more by nostalgia than by having a lot of fans of the niche.
Anyway, /end rant!
I didn't read anything so I'm clueless, sorry if this is an obvious question!
It's total playtime, I believe. Steam tracks that both online, and off.
Go offline.
Play 40 hour game.
Use webclient to request refund.
This could be turned into a real money maker. Play past the refund window, get a chance to buy an uber weapon. Wheeeeeee!
Either that or it could spawn a new genre of the featurelength cutscene :P
Less incentive to release DRM free games on Steam or make really great short narratives like Thirty Flights of Loving. Good job consumers, you can consume all you want, nom nom nom snort
Incoming get to drive the badass mech suits and unlock everything after the two hour tutorial session!
Eh of course a few people will abuse it/the same people who will return a game they really liked probably would of just pirated it anyways. Then again, there was some fine print on the refunds screen somewhere stating something like if they're suspicious you've been abusing the system aka 100 games returned at 1:55 minutes played, that they'll deny future refunds.
Probably more worrisome to the people currently exploring the short-story/under two-hours format/arcade-like games though. Would be sad to see if this kills off the tell-tale games type stuff.
Still... something needed to be done to combat the plague of shitty products being labeled "early-access" on steam, and the developers basically abandoning ship if they make too little/too much money or jump on to another product. I don't really care if it's early-access if the developers are just using the title to sell a pre-alpha, slap credits on it and call it v1.0, and proceed to abandon ship.
Not all early access titles are like this, don't get me wrong. Steam just needed something like this to combat the shovelware which honestly would probably just end up hurting sales and trust in the game industry as a whole.
And this is basically just bringing up my thoughts on how faster download speeds, false marketing terms like "Cloud," etc. all seem to be driving the software industry into a state of releasing something as quickly as possible, day one patch, and move on.
I like the initial concept of software being viewed as a service where both customers and developers form a relationship that pleases both over a longer period of time (basically DLC and updates for games, service patches and modules for other software), but lately I get the feeling that it's just causing a lot of companies to rush out whatever they have without spending a solid amount of time on development and QA.
Is that a company specific or app-store specific policy?
In the EU, for example, you can return things bought online for 14 days. Anything beyond that is not mandated by law.
Regarding returns: the original idea behind that law had physical goods in mind, which you could not evaluate in person - hence making it easy to return stuff (i.e. no threat of lawyers involved), e.g. when the shoes you bought online don't fit. I'm still not sure if this concept really makes sense for online content though.
I've heard in the past that refunds increase likelihood of purchase because it reduces perceived risk. This is a good thing for everyone imo. The only people complaining are crappy indie devs, flooding shovelware onto steam (which feels somewhat like a problem at the moment). I mean if you have a 72% return rate chances are the problem isn't with the consumer. The system IS exploitable but hopefully steam develops it and offers some protections from abuse. My only worry would be for short scale narrative games, dear ethser / the stanely parable. I'd imagine most people not to be so cheap, provided they were satisfied but we'll see i guess.
I know right, the consumerist human scum stuffing its gullet like pigs at the trough of video games. What pathetic gluttonous animals they are.
They really should refine their system, if a game costs as much as a sandwich you shouldn't be able to refund it unless it doesn't work at all. As far as I know, Valve doesn't really have a big customer support center, do they? You can't just automate this and hope for the best.
a nice compromise could be that developers which offer demo versions are excluded from this refund policy since they already allow the players to test the game.
I'm sure Valve has never considered this.
So, because some indies make a choice to create a short, hour or two game, and sell it really cheap, they are "crappy indie devs"? Even if people love the shit out of that game, gamers will take advantage of the system if they can.
But on the topic of refunds... what ever happened to demos? You know... try before you buy? Maybe those should make a come back.
The game would still log the time even offline so when you jog online to submit the request they could check against then
They should enact some kind of retroactive time based refund policy. So for indie games make it 30 minutes or something. The refund policy is a must, and sure people will always exploit it because we live in a capitalist world and greed rules.
Exactly. People are taking advantage of a method to not be locked into a regrettable purchase.
Previously, buying a game you found out you didnt like, or didnt run well on your system, or was just plain broken was akin to being taken. You were charged for goods you had little way of knowing you didnt want and only got your money back under extreme circumstances. At worst, people now have recourse for being defrauded of their money. At best, people have a path out of buyers remorse.
Hopefully steam will sort out the exploits which is only in their best interest to do
Note my final two sentences, i'm a big fan of that style of game; limbo would be in my top 5 and i'd hate to see that form of game hurt. In what I've read however two of the main progenitors of this criticism are Nina Freeman (How Do You Do It) and Qwibbo (Beyond Gravity). I'd hardly call either of them quality titles, hence crappy indie devs.
If people are so cheap to abuse the system, why wouldn't they simply pirate the title? As Gaben has said in the past, people will take the easier path and its alot easier to boot up some torrent than buy a game and return it.
I agree, i think the best solution would be attach the refund time frame to cost. Full price 2hrs, sub $30 1hr, less than $5 no refund. I'd assume they haven't because it would be difficult to convey.
I agree that I'd love to see demos make a comeback. And with the advent of Steam refunds, they should no longer have the problem of reducing gross sales because people discover that they don't like the game or don't meet the system requirements! If you and your colleagues could make a rip-roaring demo happen for Far Cry 5 next year that had some interesting new gameplay features in it I would strongly consider buying the game at full price, which I almost never do these days.
I have zero problem with refunds in general. But when people are able to beat a game, then return it, that's where the problem lies, for me. If you liked a game enough to beat it, you shouldn't be able to return it. Even if you felt the game was too short. It's not like you paid $60 for it.
I haven't really read into the policy too much though. How does this work for summer sale items? If a game is on sale, can you not return it?
Would YOU do that, if you enjoyed the game? Would your friends? No. A few people will, sure, but it doesn't mean the system is flawed. Most people will weigh their experience against the money they spent and consider it a fair trade.
http://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/
"Abuse
Refunds are designed to remove the risk from purchasing titles on Steamnot as a way to get free games. If it appears to us that you are abusing refunds, we may stop offering them to you. We do not consider it abuse to request a refund on a title that was purchased just before a sale and then immediately rebuying that title for the sale price."
-- ---
what need to be more transparent is , how they catch or describe the abuser?
I totally agree, that is why I said there needs to be a different approach for an indie game that originally start at say 5-10 dollars with a 2-3 hour game play time. Steam definitively needs to address that. Maybe start tracking something like game progress beyond time, and alter the refund policy to state 25% of game completion or 2 hours whichever is greater ? Just an Idea.
As far as i know from what I have read , summer sale is no different you can still return anything but you get it at the purchase price so the sale price
People will not abuse this system.
Those of you who think that abuse of the system is the biggest drawback have it wrong. Most people, the vast majority, will not return a game they like even if they only play it for 30 minutes. Most people, the vast majority, will not return a game they NEVER PLAY if they got it for a dollar.
The few that DO abuse the system are such a minority that in the grand scheme of things they're just background noise.
People had (have) the same fears about DRM free software and the same fears when things went digital. In the end, some of the fears were true but they were such small losses compared to the huge gains.
Like I said in my earlier post, the bigger drawback of this has to do with certain niche genres/styles of games where expectations (or memories) don't match the reality and how it may impact which games get made going forward and how we make them. Otherwise it's a very positive thing for both developers and players as it should result in more willingness to try new products.
Time will tell of course
It's not just to the Steam wallet. You can actually get your money back, which is as it should be. Overall, I think this is a big step forward for Steam, and hopefully it'll tamp down the Greenlight shovelware a bit.
How do you draw the line between:
"I liked the game enough to beat it in under two hours."
and
"The game was so short i beat it in under two hours."