Steam to offer refunds to EU customers for 14 day period

[Saracen]

Not exactly easy to do, 90% of games are on Steam.

Well, as kalniel said, they're not essential.

So you, and I, and everybody else, has a decision to make - put up with Steam's terms, and attitude, or don't.

Personally, I don't. I commented years ago, and numerous times, that I regard their operating model as unacceptable, and as a result, would not (and never have) had a Steam account, which has meant going without playing many games I otherwise would have. I'm not happy about that, but for me, not working under the conditions Steam impose is preferable to putting up with them to get access to the games.

There is no inherent right or wrong in that. I chose not to use them, but my bet is that despite (perfectly justified and justifiable) upset over this latest move, most existing Steam users won't stop using them (not least due to money already committed), and most new ones won't let it stop them because they value playing those games more highly than they regard their upset at the way Steam operate.

And fair enough. People have a choice. But the ONLY way Steam are going to change is if sufficient numbers of people stop spending with them. I just don't see that happening, despite all the annoyance and anger. Most people, IMHO, will moan about it (and they're entitled and welcome to) and then go right on buying Steam games. It's how the world is.

[BobF64]

I find that recent games are fine, but for older games, I always read the reviews and/or community posts to see if people have issues with the game.

And if the game is reaaaaaally old, I just GOG it.

[DanceswithUnix]

So basically Valve have been forced to add a refund rule that hardly anyone will make use of. Kind of surprised this was classed as news tbh.

Still, I must say I have overall been happy with Steam. My son can "borrow" my games without me having to dig out the install media, games are kept up to date without me having to track down patches, most of my games are bought at sale prices and now some of them I can play under Linux (in fact the recently on sale tower defense game I haven''t yet played under Windows).

I am more concerned by the way modern games are increasingly using online servers. What use is my Elite Dangerous game if something happens to Frontier Developments and they shut down? What if their business model turns out to not work, and they run out of money to run the servers?

If you think Steam is invasive, what must you think of the new Barbie? http://www.fudzilla.com/news/37285-s...rivacy-experts

[KendrickDM]

The reason for steam having multitudes of shoddy software products is that people purchase a license for software from steam despite there being no legal recourse for faulty goods with digital downloads on a buggy DRM launcher despite it being possible to get refunds for a hardcopy.

This meant every publisher jumped onto the Valve bandwagon to get their unfinished and faulty product sold to the masses so removing the hardcopy business model because it is more profitable to be a pirate than a honest publisher.

If god had not wanted Sheepie Shorn he would not have made them Valve Converts.

Baaa, Nuff said.

[Saracen]

....

If you think Steam is invasive, what must you think of the new Barbie? http://www.fudzilla.com/news/37285-s...rivacy-experts

Well, personally, as you're about as likely to find me playing with a Barbie, I-version or otherwise, as you are to find me playing catch with a live hand grenade. I can't say I feel my privacy is much threatened by it, but nonetheless, no way. I am, however, about as likely to let any kid of mine play with a smart Barbie as I am to let them chew on that grenade.

I do, however, take the broader point, and am VERY sceptical about many aspects of the IoT. For instance, an iFridge, or iFreezer, reading the contents from RFID tags and talking to the internet? Oh, hell, no. No way. The only way I'd EVER buy such a fridge is if they're all I-fridges, and even then, I'd give it an intensive reprogramming with a soldering iron and wirecutters.

[EndlessWaves]

Not exactly easy to do, 90% of games are on Steam.

It's very easy to do. Unless PC games are suddenly essential these days.

Also many good games have alternatives to Steam - most of the games I've bought recently I've been able to buy direct from the developer in fact.

So you're recommending people give up gaming entirely because of things unrelated to the games? Hardly the sort of 'choice' that should exist.

Very few top quality games have alternatives to steam. Excluding steam-like alternatives such as uPlay then about the only one I've come across recently is The Witcher 3.

What needs to happen is the separation of DRM and store. It's amazing that steam is allowed to install their storefront in games bought from their direct rivals.

[scaryjim]

So you're recommending people give up gaming entirely because of things unrelated to the games? ...

I don't think Saracen is "recommending" anything; simply pointing out that the choice is there: you can either use Steam, or not play steam-exclusive games (as many people have pointed out, there are other options for buying and playing many games).

tbh, the choice will *always* be the same, because games will *always* come with some kind of license agreement: and you'll always have to choose to either abide by the license agreement or not play the game. If a game chooses to use Steam for DRM that's a condition you have to live with. If you choose to buy a game through Steam that's a condition you have to live with. If you don't use Steam then yes, it will limit the games you can play, either because the developer chooses to use Steam for DRM, or because the publisher chooses to only release the game through Steam. So you need to decide whether those games are worth putting up with Steams T&Cs. That'll be a harder choice for some people than others.

Frankly the fact that Steam have been forced to offer some kind of option on refunding unplayed games is significant progress, particularly given their usual reticence over changing their T&Cs. I'm not entirely sure why so many people seem to be so annoyed at getting ]more control over their Steam library. Sure, it's not the freedom that you want, but it's a concession from a company not known for its willingness to make concessions. Grab it with both hands and rejoice, I say

[Saracen]

I don't think Saracen is "recommending" anything; simply pointing out that the choice is there: you can either use Steam, or not play steam-exclusive games (as many people have pointed out, there are other options for buying and playing many games. ....

Quite so.

I'm not recommending that people either do, or don't, buy Steam games. It's entirely irrelevant to me. The only decision relevant to me was mine, and to be honest, it was pretty easy. Because the implications of Steam are completely unacceptable to me, the decision was made for me as more and more games went the steam route. The decision was easy, but the cost of it is regrettable .... the loss of playing those games. But .... so be it.

I thought I was pretty clear, though. Everybody faces their own choice, and I don't expect many people to be prepared to forego playing those games over Steam.

[Chadders87]

The worst part is the fact Steam only sell you "access" to a game without transferring ownership, and that said access is not time specified.

They can legally remove a game from your library if they choose. However, will they ever do this? I doubt it.

This new EU directive is a pretty big thing for them, as a company that out right refuse most refunds normally. Although I think more is needed for games that are mis-sold or are broken and lack developer support.

[KeyboardDemon]

The worst part is the fact Steam only sell you "access" to a game without transferring ownership, and that said access is not time specified.

They can legally remove a game from your library if they choose. However, will they ever do this? I doubt it.

This new EU directive is a pretty big thing for them, as a company that out right refuse most refunds normally. Although I think more is needed for games that are mis-sold or are broken and lack developer support.

The reason for this might have to do with third parties that are involved in the chain. If I buy a game by Activision on Steam and the game runs on Activision's servers and then servers are shut down, then all the best intentions in the world from Steam would not make that game playable again. So the clause is their get of jail card.

[eugenius]

So, you can have your money back only if you don't install it? WTF?

That's like the right to return a TV if you don't open the box, it's the exact inverse of what the law is supposed to do.

The right way is to give you a time limited key and a final key when the 14 days are over or you waive your right.

But hey it's Steam - a monopoly like any other.

[sameloop]

Say what you like about Origin, at least they actually give you a genuine return policy that includes playing the game and deciding whether you actually like it. Saved me some money a couple of times.

[kalniel]

So you're recommending people give up gaming entirely because of things unrelated to the games?

Nope. But it's very easy to give up if you don't agree with it.

Very few top quality games have alternatives to steam. Excluding steam-like alternatives such as uPlay then about the only one I've come across recently is The Witcher 3.

Then you just need to look around some more.

If you like RPGs like TW3 then you can also get:
Divinity: Original Sin
Pillars of Eternity (from tomorrow)
Legend of Grimrock 2
Dreamfall Chapters
Wasteland 2

to name but a few excellent DRM-free games.

[KeyboardDemon]

The right way is to give you a time limited key and a final key when the 14 days are over or you waive your right.

I like this idea, I'd even be willing to only get 90% of my payment back and even adding a condition that I have not played more than a certain number of hours, or completed more than a given percentage of the game/story/progress bar etc...

[Ttaskmaster]

So, you can have your money back only if you don't install it? WTF?
That's like the right to return a TV if you don't open the box

Pretty much, yeah.
Kinda like opening a can of beans, at which point the product is then considered used.

If the port is crappy or the game is bug-ridden, that's down to the Dev and the retailer can issue a refund before shouting at the Devs over it.
If the download is actually defective (and not just badly made) then it's something the retailer can sort out or refund.

If the game is just boring or naff then that's for you to shout at the Devs over (although I'd also suggest reading more reviews next time), but IMO simply not liking something is not a reason to go back to the retailer for a refund.

[shaithis]

IMO simply not liking something is not a reason to go back to the retailer for a refund.

It should be. At least if there is no demo available.