Some developers hit hard by new Steam Refunds policy

[ChinesePate]

or don't sell ****ty games wrapped in golden wrapper

[Saracen]

I think the only thing we can do here is wait and watch.

I commend Steam for giving this a try, and I guess it all depends on how it works out once, as some have already pointed out, the dust of the novelty factor has settled down. But I remember a certain high street games company tried something similar, and had to give it up because too many people abused it.

Personally, I found that high street "money back" guarantee very reassuring, because it meant I could try a game risk free. And because of that, I took a chance on many games, and never needed to return one. But I knew I could have.

On the other hand, having been burned a couple of times (like 7th Guest) when I didn't have a return option, I'm MUCH more careful about what games I buy without the return option, especially for premium-priced games, to the point that I very rarely buy games on release any more.

So I think the future of this guarantee is entirely in the hands of the gaming community. Use it as intended, with an honesty of spirit, and Steam are likely to keep it. Abuse it, and my bet is they'll either restrict individuals from it, or to the detriment of the gaming community as a whole, dump it altogether.

Abuse it, and you'll lose it.

[BobF64]

If Devs were forced to publish expected completion times (or categories, 1-2, 2-5, 5-10, 10+ hours etc) then the refund limit could be set to, say, 10% of the expected time rather than a fixed 2 hour period.

I guess it would have to be some sort of average, because different people have different play styles.

Sadly a lot of people given the choice of a free lunch will take it irrespective of how nice it is.

Indeed, when Radiohead released their album "In Rainbows" with a pay what you want scheme, where you could pay ZERO if you wanted, people STILL shared it via torrent sites...


Tbh, small developers might end up having to go back to the old shareware ways, adding the full content as some sort of in-app purchase that prevents refunds. That or nasty 3rd party DRM.

[mikerr]

At the bottom of the article it says steam are actually giving refund for games up to 6 months after payment

I presume this is also only if under 2 hours played ?

(opens up steam to see if I have any pointless purchases over the last few months )

[evs]

I think Indie games really should all have the general warning of 'incomplete' as they always are and the price often reflects that. It's also a case of what you expect for the money.
If a game is £2 then it's not likely to reflect 20 hours of gameplay and then when you look at some MP only games, technically you could say a play through online could be 'game complete'.
Steam probably needs to look at a trading policy on games and allow those from your library to be traded or put up for resale in some form but that is certainly another kettle of fish

[valhar2000]

Returning games that you have owned for months is not that unusual. I have games in my Steam library that have been there for months, or years, even though I have only played them once, because they are literally unplayable. I bought them because they had great reviews, because I'd seen videos on Youtube that made them look fun, because they were recommended by friends, etc., but the very first time I tried them they were a pain to play, if they worked at all. If Steam had had a refund policy back then, I would have returned them.

That is why I always pirate games before buying them these days. I've been burned too many times.

[Irien]

Big Fish games, which tend to be short, casual titles, offer 1hr trial of more-or-less any product. This usually isn't enough time to finish the game, but still gives a sizeable taster. To be honest, even 30 mins should tell you whether you regret your purchase.

Sadly this just ends up fuelling the free-to-play model. Ugh.

[valhar2000]

Sadly a lot of people given the choice of a free lunch will take it irrespective of how nice it is.

And those people have somehow not become aware of Torrents yet?

[valhar2000]

Tbh, small developers might end up having to go back to the old shareware ways, adding the full content as some sort of in-app purchase that prevents refunds. That or nasty 3rd party DRM.

That is a perfect example of when a refund is needed. Small developers who would do that sort of thing deserve to be out of business.

[evs]

There's been far too much bandwagon jumping to pump out 20% of a game with promises of a fantastic experience that never gets even close to being delivered. Too often we see greed take over and cash gets taken with no real incentive to finish the product and it's akin to a confidence scam.

Steam need to take a firmer stance on this as it's toxic all round, it's harming steam's name, harming the consumer and harming the indie guys who do want to make a good game and see it and themselves grow.

For each greenlight game there likely needs to be a charter on milestones when they are approved, not just some youtuber lobbyist sending the sheep to vote for it and so Steam approves as it sees the ££/$$ signs.
Probably then the game price needs to be graded on each milestone, so if it gets to 50% complete the game is 50% priced and so on.

[kalniel]

And those people have somehow not become aware of Torrents yet?

Why torrent a potentially honeytrapped game when you can get it for free and clean through the official retailer?

[crossy]

Indeed, when Radiohead released their album "In Rainbows" with a pay what you want scheme, where you could pay ZERO if you wanted, people STILL shared it via torrent sites...

Yes, but isn't that because some people are ... to be polite, both morally and intellectually challenged? Actually, I'm being unfair - the sharers are bad, but the folk who downloaded via torrentz are pretty dumb.

Tbh, small developers might end up having to go back to the old shareware ways, adding the full content as some sort of in-app purchase that prevents refunds. That or nasty 3rd party DRM.

DRM is just horrible, definitely an idea that I hope disappears. On the other hand I'm quite happy with the idea of a "free" game where you have to pay to unlock beyond a certain point. Then the "free" version is effectively a playable demo. It's something I've done with my tablet games. I'd even be cautiously approving of a scheme where there was a nominal fee (50p-£1) for the first couple of levels with a further payment for the upper levels - as long as this was made clear from the outset.

As to the Steam issue - yes the current "one size fits all" approach of Valve isn't going to work. There needs to be distinction between the terms offered for the £50+ AAA titles and those one-man-and-a-dog outfits doing games for the same price as a magazine.

[ZaO]

This is kind of like the new demo. You get 2 hours of gameplay time to decide whether you want the game or not. I think the rules will need tweaking a bit, especially for those very cheap and short indie games, but, over all, this is a good thing imo.

Isn't Steam a form of DRM anyway? I don't understand this thing about indie devs considering some other DRM..

[ChinesePate]

Isn't Steam a form of DRM anyway? I don't understand this thing about indie devs considering some other DRM..

Steam itself is a distribution platform, but offer DRM as an option (probably paid extra)

[BobF64]

Small developers who would do that sort of thing deserve to be out of business.

Ahh, just as you'd enjoy being told you're fired because whatever work you did this month didn't make any money for your employer?

Isn't Steam a form of DRM anyway? I don't understand this thing about indie devs considering some other DRM..

I'm not sure any are, but something was mentioned about the game files still being available and fully playable even after a refund, and adding some sort of DRM would be logical.

[ZaO]

Steam itself is a distribution platform, but offer DRM as an option (probably paid extra)

Ahh, just as you'd enjoy being told you're fired because whatever work you did this month didn't make any money for your employer?



I'm not sure any are, but something was mentioned about the game files still being available and fully playable even after a refund, and adding some sort of DRM would be logical.

I looked into it more, and yeh, it seems like Steam's Drm is an optional thing. I dunno how much extra that costs. But I suppose they might want to use it. Thing is, Drm doesn't stop anything anyway. It's useless. People who want games for free will get them for free, except there is a way they can do it without handing any money over first and waiting/hoping to get a refund.

I hope the kinks in this policy can be ironed out. I have faith that they will. I look forward to a future where you can get a refund on a bug ridden, half finished, generic mess. I also look forward to being able to demo games before buying, like you used to.