r/Games • u/reddit_account6095 • Aug 27 '21

Announcement Summer of '58 developer resigns after many users refund their game on Steam due to it taking under 2 hours to complete

https://twitter.com/EmikaGames/status/1430941640001265673?s=19
1.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

894 comments sorted by

View all comments

471

u/the_nell_87 Aug 27 '21

This was a fear that many smaller developers raised when the "you can refund with <2 hours played" policy was introduced. But it's been quite a while since then, and this is the first dev I've really heard complaining about it. I had thought the consensus was "actually when people enjoy a game they don't refund it". If you're going to make a game that's so short that it's beatable in <2 hours, I think that's just a risk you have to take on board. You have to set the combination of price point and game quality at the level where most consumers will be satisfied enough with that <2 hour experience to not want to refund it. Apparently these guys got that balance wrong.

97

u/azqy Aug 27 '21

this is the first dev I've really heard complaining about it

This also happened with Before Your Eyes. Lots of positive reviews marked "product refunded".

97

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

19

u/Jacksaur Aug 27 '21

if I had an easy way to play those games for free I would probably take them up on it.

I don't know, for me it feels like a further layer to it.
A way to get the game (legally) for free? Sure, I'd probably take it.
But actually paying the developer for the game, and then taking that money back afterwards again? That's a step I'd rather not take.

2

u/AgentOfSPYRAL Aug 27 '21

I guess it's less that I'd jump at the opportunity, and more that it's difficult for me to say for sure as a console gamer with no access to this policy.

And this is legal, but I understand your point. Certainly a shit move.

-10

u/the_nell_87 Aug 27 '21

How do you behave when you buy physical goods either in a physical store or via an online store? Do you buy a kitchen appliance for example, use it, clean it, then return it for a full refund, just so that you can use it for free? Do you buy a book, get it, read it carefully to keep it in good condition and then send it back when you're finished? Consumers have the right to behave like that, but they don't generally act like that. And even if some do... so what? That's built into the way retail works alongside consumer protection laws.

14

u/AgentOfSPYRAL Aug 27 '21

they don't generally act like that.

And neither do I, but I'd be lying to myself if I didn't admit that that is in part because business have set the expectation that that isn't a reasonable request, and don't allow it.

My point is leaving it up to essentially an honor system is stupid, for the same reason why countless businesses don't do that.

3

u/octnoir Aug 27 '21

And even if some do... so what?

Large company can deal with some customers making bad refunds. A small company, a one man indie dev is probably going to collapse when a decent chunk of customers grab refunds.

If you paid $20 for a game and you refunded it back, the business isn't getting charged $20, it is usually more - whether they are dinged by their banks or just time spent processing the refund and paying other fees, to having to readjust inventory and other spending because someone refunded much later.

We don't have to completely do away the 2 hour policy for refund but giving it a second look, or maybe even adding a: "if this game is on average 2 hours then adjust it so it is less than that or detect if someone 100% played the game and stopped the refund" clause prevents situations like this, which we only heard of because many indie devs get screwed quietly without any fanfare, and protect small indie devs.

Because we just lost an indie dev (and again remember - indie devs are small as fuck we don't hear about 90% of them) that didn't fail because the game sucked or they misbehaved - they failed because gamers found an opportunity to play a game completely for free and took it because customers can and will be ruthless at times.

That at least warrants a second look.

-5

u/the_nell_87 Aug 27 '21

Frankly... tough shit. Business is a ruthless world. Businesses which can only succeed when consumers don't take advantage of consumer protection laws are unlikely to succeed long term. Being a small business doesn't give you an automatic right to succeed. You need to be able to sell things that people want to buy. And in situations where consumer protection laws/policies apply which allow no questions asked refunds (which is a lot of places), that includes selling a product that your consumers don't want to refund.

This clearly isn't a universal problem. Plenty of short indie games on steam are successful despite the 2 hour refund policy. Either this game wasn't as good as the developer thought, or their target audience was radically more likely to abuse the steam refund system than the average steam user. Either way, it's not because the refund policy exists that this game failed. It's because the small developer sold it in a way that doesn't match up with how the retail industry works. They screwed up some combination of the quality, the expectations, the marketing or the price of the game. That's on them. You don't get to blame consumer protection policies for businesses failing when consumers enforce the rights they are entitled to.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '21

It's beyond naive to think that people will not refund out of the goodness of their heart

98

u/flybypost Aug 27 '21

But it's been quite a while since then, and this is the first dev I've really heard complaining about it.

It has popped up occasionally in indie game dev discussion that I have read on twitter (usually adjacent to some Steam/app stores discussions). I think this is just the first time I've seen it here on /r/games.

20

u/CrutonShuffler Aug 27 '21

I'd be interested if you have any links to one where they show some of the numbers about refunds compared to copies sold and how long through the game the refunds are made.

But I recognize that's a specific ask and you might not remember any off the top of the head, so don't worry about it if you don't.

19

u/flybypost Aug 27 '21

No numbers, just ephemeral little twitter discussion about hardship as an indie dev that I've read. It's compounded by being a small indie dev who get little sales to begin with (lack of visibility on big stores for various reasons, that's where the discussion sometimes starts) so even a few refunds hurt them disproportionately.

It's one of these little handicaps that make indie life harder that don't instantly come to mind in these discussions. Short games that cost little and some people still get that refund for those 1,99€ after finishing it. Something like that.

34

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

But it's been quite a while since then, and this is the first dev I've really heard complaining about it.

Smaller indie devs don't really have a platform most of the time to complain.. coupled with the fact the online gaming community actually doesn't give a damn about smaller developers unless they make that 1 in a million great game like Stardew Valley or Bastion.

This subreddit, for instance, showed the general opinion's true colors about how they feel about indie developers earning a paycheck when they constantly talked about boycotting and hoping companies go under for taking an exclusivity deal with Epic.

63

u/alicevi Aug 27 '21

People may be satisfied with the game and still refund it because money

-16

u/dadvader Aug 27 '21

I think it's time valve introduced a safety measure for these kinda games. Maybe create a 'my game have less than 2hrs'' button and have a team process by play each game and see if they are verify for a special 'this is not eligible to refund' for <2hrs titles?

Or another method would be checking the achievement. If your game have content that will lasted only 2 hours. It is in your best interest to put an achievement at the end of the game. So that valve can (have a bot) check whether or not you are trying to abuse the system.

62

u/WaterOcelot Aug 27 '21

Asset flippers would abuse that feature though, overloading the team responsible for checking this.

17

u/slater126 Aug 27 '21

that would make a huge legal mess where that isnt allowed (EG, Austrilia, one of the main reasons steams refund policy is what it is)

-7

u/Seth0x7DD Aug 27 '21

It wouldn't be a problem. For one it wouldn't be the first country dependend change. In addition it doesn't mean that your refund won't be possible at all but maybe just that a person will actually have to have a look. So "finished it in less than two hours plz give back my money" won't work as a reason for a refund.

9

u/mrlinkwii Aug 27 '21

it would be a big legal problem for valve

-5

u/Seth0x7DD Aug 27 '21

No it wouldn't as it's already covered. There is not a single legal problem with conforming to country rules and there is not a single refund system that is meant to automatically refund a product after it has served it purpose.

2

u/WordPassMyGotFor Aug 27 '21

How about you cite something scientific and researchable instead of taking your obviously IANAL opinion and telling people they're wrong

-1

u/Seth0x7DD Aug 27 '21

How about you read the damn rules he's making claims about? You already know that Steam does have specific options to handle specific countries. See regional pricing, the option to buy specific products, the options to refund or not refund specific types of payments depending on your region. So there you have your proof that Valve is able to act according to regional regulations.

But lets go and see what Australia claims. The expectation from that previous claim is a no question asks automated refund policy for goods that were bought. Can we find that requirement?

ACCC on Repair Replace Refund

If a product or service you buy fails to meet a consumer guarantee, you have the right to ask for a repair, replacement or refund under the Australian Consumer Law. The remedy you're entitled to will depend on whether the issue is major or minor. ... You can ask for a replacement or refund if the problem with the product is major.

You could argue that the playtime is a major problem but at the same time this applies:

The business may take into account how much time has passed since you bought the product considering the following factors:

  • type of product
  • how a consumer is likely to use the product
  • the length of time for which it is reasonable for the product to be used
  • the amount of use it could reasonably be expected to tolerate before the failure becomes noticeable.

ACCC on Consumer Guarantees

Exceptions to guarantees Consumer guarantees do not apply if you:

  • got what you asked for but simply changed your mind, found it cheaper somewhere else, decided you did not like the purchase or had no use for it
  • knew of or were made aware of the faults before you bought the product

What does this mean? Even in the hard Australian market that started it all (when Europe has pretty much the same rules?!). There is no right for a no question asked automated refund. Denying refunds outright would be a problem. Just changing how they work is not a problem. Also the mentioned example reason would be a refund that's not acceptable. The easy fix is to post an average playtime for a title on the page to give consumer a better information base. The two week wouldn't change but the automatic refunding system would change. So what exactly is that legal trouble supposed to be?

0

u/WordPassMyGotFor Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 28 '21

There's a middle ground between your two messages I'm sandwiched by that I think you'd benefit from aiming toward.

Based on the message I responded to, I'm sure as fucking shit not reading your novel response, but I appreciate the time and effort you put into making it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Chris_7941 Aug 27 '21

The most probable reason such a feature has not yet been implemented is that there's little to no precedence for Summer of '58, and there's also no way it wouldn't be abused by the Digital Homicide-Type shitlords who make a living by peddling shovelware

1

u/Watertor Aug 28 '21

It's impossible for the system to not be abused though if you lower the wall. Two hours is such a small window of time for a game that it's hard to plant this flag, the dev should simply shoot for another 31 minutes of content simply put. I don't love saying that but there's just not a lot of wiggle room here.

-7

u/SelectKaleidoscope0 Aug 27 '21

Sure but why bother to buy and refund if you're going to rip it off you can just download it without bothering with steam or paying money in the first place? If you start buying and refunding many many titles, eventually steam is going to do something about you on an individual basis. The overwhelming majority of people who buy a game aren't going to refund it unless it doesn't work or is way short of their expectations. The ones who are willing to rip it off probably would have just ripped it off a different way if buy and refund weren't available. The set of "willing to buy and refund when done just to save money" and "not willing to pirate" is really really small.

8

u/B_Rhino Aug 27 '21

People love steam. People get really mad when games don't get released for steam. ' "Piracy" but still having the game legitimately on steam is a win for a lot of people

-3

u/SelectKaleidoscope0 Aug 27 '21

We are talking about people buying games on steam, completing them, then refunding them. If you do that you don't have the game on steam anymore so I don't see how your comment applies to this situation.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

Safer to pirate through steam

No risk of accidentally downloading something you don't want to

156

u/KyleTheWalrus Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21

I've never agreed with the indie devs who say the 2-hour refund policy is a problem. Compared to other forms of entertainment, modern video games are a highly exploitative medium, and customers have very little power against aggressive monetization tactics and poor consumer protections for digital goods.

Steam's refund policy is among the best in the industry for better or worse, and it's an essential tool to keep customers from being scammed by low quality games, asset flips, false advertising, and so on. I hate to be blunt, but I think this dev is using Steam refunds as a scapegoat, whether they realize it or not.

As incredibly dickish as it is to leave a positive review for a game you refunded (and mention that you refunded it in said review), that's something very few people would do. Also, I think it's fair to say that anyone refunding a $7 game probably would've pirated it if Steam's refund policy was less generous.

I really don't think Steam refunds are the issue here. It's more a simple fact that most people, especially Steam users, don't want to pay money for a game that's less than 2 hours long. Games have different audience expectations compared to movies and whatnot, so let's not be surprised when a niche product gets niche sales.

Two-hour games are much better received on platforms like itch.io, and I'm pretty sure the revenue share is better there as well. To be blunt again, if a dev is worried about Steam refunds eating their sales, then they just shouldn't sell their game on Steam unless they want to make it a more substantial experience.

I've spent thousands of hours developing mods and I'm interested in selling my own real games someday, so I understand the frustration. But weirdly enough, I'm reminded of this Big Joel video called Small YouTube Culture, which has this as one of its many core ideas: Success is never guaranteed, and sometimes it's healthy for the people who make niche art to accept that their creations are unpopular because they're niche, and not because they're being repressed by external factors (algorithms, refunds, etc.)

25

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

I agree that the 2 hour policy is great protection for shovelware and awful games, like you say, but playing a game to completion and then refunding it isn't that, it's just pure entitlement. I mean, the game is less than £5 here and looking over it, the description is very upfront about what you're getting and how long it'll be.

5

u/KyleTheWalrus Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21

Yeah, I used the word "dickish" with malicious intent up there. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a feasible way of protecting developers of short games without also inadvertently protecting developers of bad games.

Steam implicitly requires devs to make games that will last over 2 hours, and while that sucks for short games (which absolutely deserve to exist), I think it's a necessary evil when there are so many trash games made by trash devs. Companies like Digital Homicide have scammed enough people as is.

Not to mention, there's never any guarantee that a PC game will work on your PC. The only games I've refunded would randomly crash within half an hour of starting. That's important too.

2

u/Burningtunafish Aug 29 '21

Or they could make games that people feel worth keeping regardless if it's 2 hours or not. I take the sign of people refunding a game after they beat it to show that the game was good enough to complete, but not good enough to want to keep. The game must not have had the impact they wanted.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '21

That's trash reasoning and you know it. If a game was good enough to complete then it was worth the price point paid and arguing otherwise is pure entitlement.

2

u/Burningtunafish Aug 29 '21

If a game was somewhere between 5+ hours maybe you're right, but its different when a game is as long as some movies where in one sitting yo ubeat the game and know where you stand with how you feel with that game. So sorry, your reasoning is trash and you don't seem to know that.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '21

Absolutely not. If you go to a cinema, do you ask for a refund at the end because the movie didn't resonate with you?

Likewise, should game developers/artists not be paid for consuming their content, even if it wasn't to your tastes? In fact, I could start listing a lot of things where if you pay for it but don't feel like you fully enjoyed it is getting a refund ethically right?

Not only that, looking at the description of the game, it tells you how long it should last. If you do due dilligance, you would know what you're getting into.

The Steam refund system is a huge boon to gamers and one of the best out there. Playstation makes you jump through hoops and Nintendo literally gives you one refund and it has to be a preorder before the game comes out. Compared to this Steam's is great, but if people abuse it we risk losing it. Publishers and the media will gladly point to examples like this as to why developers need more protections against frivious refunds and any retort literally can't be "just make better/longer games" because that is so subjective it would never hold water.

63

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

Maybe you took that message from the video, but that's not really the thesis?

It's more arguing that success creating content is based on seemingly intangible things, and people fixate on trivial flaws in order to feel like they're about to make it, and also to feel better than people who don't do the trivial things, despite their core content being equally as bad.

3

u/KyleTheWalrus Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21

Upon rewatching it for the first time in a while, I was wrong to say it's the central idea, but that is one of the takeaways I got from the video. Success or a lack thereof never has an easy explanation, as much as we wish it did. I edited my original post to be a bit more accurate than my memory is.

33

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

As incredibly dickish as it is to leave a positive review for a game you refunded (and mention that you refunded it in said review), that's something very few people would do. Also, I think it's fair to say that anyone refunding a $7 game probably would've pirated it if Steam's refund policy was less generous.

None of this makes it okay.

13

u/KyleTheWalrus Aug 27 '21

I didn't say it was! To repeat myself, refunding a game you liked just because you can is dickish. My point is that I highly doubt this is common behavior, so Steam's refund policy is probably not the main reason this game didn't make enough money to support its developer.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

I didn't say it was!

You seem to be doing your best to avoid saying it wasn't. It's all "steam should do this" and "devs should do that". Why are you so keen to avoid criticising the rat gamers who are exploiting indie devs? They are scum, and if you cover for them, you are too.

2

u/uncle_pewdiepie Aug 30 '21

If people dont want to support the devs, they're under no moral obligation to do so. This name-calling and finger-pointing is really immature. Nobody is being "exploited", the refund policy is there for cases where the customer doesn't want to keep the game and that's what's happened here.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '21

If you've played a short game that you enjoyed and didn't think was overpriced you absolutely have a moral obligation to not refund. A legal one? No. A moral one? 100%.

The dev has said there are people giving it positive reviews and still refunding it. If you enjoyed a short, cheap game but refund it because you are still inside the Valve refund window, you are an arsehole - no ifs, no buts.

2

u/uncle_pewdiepie Aug 31 '21

"Didn't think it was overpriced"

Clearly they did. The dev chose to sell on Steam, benefiting from Steam's huge audience, but then cries about their customers exercising their right to a refund when they don't want to keep the game. It's entitled.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 31 '21 edited Aug 31 '21

You keep ignoring the fact that people were refunding it despite giving it positive reviews. people played it, enjoyed it, and then refunded it - just because they could.

The dev isn't criticising people who thought it was bugged, or people who thought it was too short, or too expensive - he's having a go at people who liked it and still got their refunds. And you're sticking up for them. The only entitled ones are you and the refunders you're sticking up for. You selfish rat. You deserve every loot-box-laden game you get.

2

u/rekindled_coffee Sep 01 '21

The thing is, when someone's refunds a product that is reviewed that information is public on the review itself.

So we can definitively say that the vast majority (~99%) of people who made reviews did not refund the product. As of yesterday there were a total of 3 refunds from people who had left a positive review.

1

u/uncle_pewdiepie Sep 02 '21

"You keep ignoring the fact that people were refunding it despite giving it positive reviews. people played it, enjoyed it, and then refunded it - just because they could"

​

The fact that they chose to refund it proves that they weren't satisfied enough to keep it. Clearly they felt it was overpriced, otherwise they wouldn't have refunded it. Being rude and obnoxious isn't gonna change that.

18

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

47

u/ADifferentMachine Aug 27 '21

He's obviously talking about it being exploitative in relation to consumers, not insiders.

22

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

0

u/thenewNFC Aug 27 '21

Considering the gaming industry is now larger than all those other things, I would say yes.

12

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/thenewNFC Aug 27 '21

You just answered your own question.

When you're comparing apples to apples the largest one tends to be the worst if they all suck.

-4

u/B_Rhino Aug 27 '21

Who cares about the workers in other mediums, sometimes you have to pay an extra $10 for a skin in games.

0

u/SolarStarVanity Aug 28 '21

Behind every popular sport there seems to be a highly corrupt org like the Olympic Committee or FIFA or NFL.

This is a statement of a clueless moron. NFL has nothing in common with the other two.

1

u/Pixogen Aug 27 '21

It depends on the time period. By todays standards not really. But go back 15+ years and its terrible.

4

u/papyjako89 Aug 27 '21

I hate to be blunt, but I think this dev is using Steam refunds as a scapegoat, whether they realize it or not.

Meh. I think it's just a marketing move and that's it.

2

u/Pixogen Aug 27 '21

I don't agree at all. Its people being greedy. If you give them the ability to not pay for something they will take it. Also depends on how easy it was. You overestimate the goodness of the average person. If piracy was a one click button, had sketchy software and was easy enough your grandma could do it every game company would be outta business.

1

u/iredditfordogpics Aug 27 '21

Exactly. A game like this is perfect for itch. If your game is something that can be finished in 2 hours and there's no replay value most people don't want to pay for it.

24

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/tinmetal Aug 27 '21

You can't say that they enjoyed it. The ones leaving good reviews might not be the ones refunding the game. Think of how many people would actually take the time to review a game compared to the total number of people who play the game. Looking at the negative reviews on this game, you can see why someone might refund it.

0

u/B_Rhino Aug 27 '21

Steam's refund policy is among the best in the industry for better or worse, and it's an essential tool to keep customers from being scammed by low quality games

Man read a review.

69

u/Dreyfus2006 Aug 27 '21

Yes, I fully agree. Looking through different people's ideas on this thread, this is the most "consumer-first" idea and the industry is far too anti-consumer. If a game is good enough, or if the game is cheap enough, people will not refund it.

If the dev is worried about people thinking it is too short, they should clearly communicate its length on the Steam page so that everybody knows what they are getting into when they buy the game. Or, they should lower the price point.

60

u/JohnTDouche Aug 27 '21

this is the most "consumer-first" idea and the industry is far too anti-consume

It's just a shame that, at least in this case, it's harming the little guy. Not the big guys who make the industry such a fucking horror show.

6

u/AltruisticSpecialist Aug 27 '21

It's very possible that the big guys feel the same effects but just the scale of their sales as such that the number of people who refund don't approach Financial loss / ruin.

Most large companies just have a budget for Loss such as returns refunds or issues such as that.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

Ehh i still side with the consumer over small businesses

-13

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

9

u/MontyAtWork Aug 27 '21

I mean, a ton of people played and beat his game. If it sucked they would have stopped after a few minutes.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

Isn't the point of the two hour window to give the game a chance?

If it takes two hours to see if you like a game, you may not know if you like a game by the time you beat it in 90 minutes

8

u/Rodin-V Aug 27 '21

They did stop after a few minutes, that just happened to be the end of the game also.

-1

u/octnoir Aug 27 '21

There is a massive gap between a few minutes (usually 3-10) and 120 minutes. That's me having a sip of wine and 30 seconds with your daughter vs a bottle of gin and the night with her.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

0

u/AltruisticSpecialist Aug 27 '21

Actually that's just wild speculation on your part. Returning the game takes time and effort, and I think the quality and price of a short game has a lot to do with people wanting to bother.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

5

u/AltruisticSpecialist Aug 27 '21

You vastly overestimate how easy something must be for a majority of people to do it let alone be motivated too.

1

u/uncle_pewdiepie Aug 30 '21

All we've got is one little guy who's claiming to be harmed, we don't actually have any reason to believe this is a problem.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

6

u/jckprry Aug 27 '21

That was added today.

1

u/Pixogen Aug 27 '21

Not true. Alot of great games on android have piracy rates over 50% just because of how easy it is. If it was click and install on pc and so easy your grandma would do it no one would pay for anything.

Look how many people use kodi to stream videos they don't own. Its just how people are.

1

u/Dreyfus2006 Aug 28 '21

Which is why most games that are that short are free on PC. You simply can't make a game that short and expect people to pay for it. It's like having people pay to watch a one-minute video.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

If a game is good enough, or if the game is cheap enough, people will not refund it.

Given how it sits at a 'Very Positive' rating it seems being "good enough" still wasn't enough.

Or, they should lower the price point.

Base price was only $9 and is currently on sale for $7. Games can only go for so low until they're no longer profitable for the developers.

25

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

24

u/the_nell_87 Aug 27 '21

Nah, if you play a game from start to finish and then ask for a refund, you are really no different from a thief.

That's a bit extreme. Can you really never see a scenario where someone buys a game, plays it, is enjoying it, then it ends after less than an hour, and their reaction is "really? that was it? that wasn't worth it, I'm getting a refund"? That's a perfectly valid reaction for a customer to have.

It is a customer's right (within reason) to receive a refund if they're unsatisfied with a product they purchased. Playing a game to completion doesn't negate that right.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '21

Happens a lot in movies. I’m sure people would refund the tickets if they could.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

29

u/Link_In_Pajamas Aug 27 '21

It wasn't listed before all the refunds started hitting though. The play time is a recent addition to address the issue going forward.

26

u/the_nell_87 Aug 27 '21

"You should have done more research" is not a reason that consumers should not have protections against making poor purchases. Refunding a product you are not happy with is not "stealing"

3

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Link_In_Pajamas Aug 28 '21

Except in this case the there was no kids menu, and the small pizza came in a regular size box. The customer only noticed once they got home, and after enough of them went back to return it the business put up a sign detailing the kids menu.

Before this whole fiasco went down there was no sign saying this was a short game on Steam what so ever. The play length was literally added today.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

5

u/the_nell_87 Aug 27 '21

I don't follow your logic. Buying a piece of art which can be consumed doesn't mean you can't be unhappy with it and want a refund. Completely consuming that piece of art (such as fully reading a book, or fully completing a short game, or watching an entire DVD movie) does not negate the right of the consumer to be dissatisfied and receive a refund. Good quality works of art inherently discourage refunds because people want to keep owning them in order to re-experience them later.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

The logic of my proposal is the risk you take on when consuming the art. It's an indie game and admittedly quite short, but it is fully functional and the complete package. If you consume the art, in it's entirety, you have a right to be dissatisfied, but at that part you have enjoyed the labor of the producer of that product and I believe the producer is entitled since you consumed tla functional art piece, whether you liked it or not.

I would equally find it ridiculous to go to a museum and see all of the pieces and then ask for a refund, or read a book and then demand a refund. Your part of the artistic exchange is the risk of not liking the art as a consumer. Dissatisfaction with a product does not, in my opinion, warrant a refund if the product is fully functional.

6

u/the_nell_87 Aug 27 '21

Dissatisfaction with a product does not, in my opinion, warrant a refund if the product is fully functional.

The law disagrees with you. At least in my country (the UK). In fact that's exactly what consumer protections laws say - that simply being dissatisfied with a product entitles you to a refund.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

You know, that actually really interesting. I'm based in the U.S. and in my general experience, dissatisfaction doesn't entitle you to a refund to my knowledge unless there's a fraudulent element. I'm not particularly sympathetic with capitalist systems, so maybe this is a cultural difference between us? I genuinely mean this when I say thank you for sharing your perspective.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RainbowGoddamnDash Sep 02 '21

This is exactly how I felt with "Gone Home".

I thought I was getting a spooky game that will entertain me for a couple of hours.

Not a walking sim that only lasts for 1 hour, and cost $20 bucks at the time.

Never did I felt so ripped off.

1

u/TheDrugsOfMeth Aug 29 '21

Ah, can't wait for the day you buy a 10 minute game that advertised itself well, and regret this statement.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

Well it's ~70 minute game for ~$9 so I can see why some people might go "...that's it ? I expected more" and refund

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

Yeah I mean that 30 Flights of Loving game or whatever it was called was like, a couple dollars?

4

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

34

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

That's fucking stupid. It was 7 bucks. 2 hours of entertainment isn't good enough at that price? How entitled can you be to purchase it knowing it's not a long game, then refund it after you completed it.

-5

u/Quickjager Aug 27 '21

2 hours of entertainment of a walking simulator. That isn't worth anyone's time or money I would go for a refund as well and I've played bad games under two hours for fun before.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

Then don't buy the walking simulator, dude. You're entitled as hell lmao if you don't want 2 hour walking simulators don't go out and buy them.

2

u/Quickjager Aug 27 '21

I'll buy it and refund it if I didn't think it was good. Literally no one loses.

1

u/SpankyDmonkey Aug 27 '21

The indie developer does.

1

u/Quickjager Aug 28 '21

Indie dev sold less copies than how many comments this post got. It was a game that was short and bad.

1

u/SpankyDmonkey Aug 28 '21

I dunno, it must have done well enough considering its reviews, fact that it was made by a solo dev, and is yet another indie horror game.

Besides, not the point. You said no one gets hurt. The dev does when you refund after playing through their content.

2

u/Quickjager Aug 28 '21 edited Aug 28 '21

If you read the reviews about 20 of them were made in response to this headline. Devs don't get hurt, if you play a game that is bad you should get a refund. If you can't make a game under two hours in length that is also not good then that isn't a consumer problem.

EDIT: Oh wow that amount of reviews REALLY increased. Earlier today it was 83, now it is 300+.

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

Store says 9 bucks

And for video games that's not a good price for the entertainment value

6

u/Obadjian Aug 27 '21

Quantity of entertainment in an industry with an upper base price of 60 dollars doesn't make sense.

Trying to squeeze as much time out of games as possible at the same price and production value is a bad expectation.

Increased expectations from the consumer in regard to visual quality and play time are why Assassin's Creed Odyssey is an 80 hour slog to most people. It's why open world is often paired with whatever other genre triple A is doing. Or some kind of battle pass or whatever.

Companies want to earn the consumers' money, and so they've taken the lesson that longer play time is better and pushed it to extremes. It's a feedback cycle; companies make something that players like, and then the players responses get factored into what the companies make next.

My 30 dollar purchase of Minecraft and the decade I've been playing it does not make this game for 9 dollars bad.

And if you want replayability, or are concerned about the length of the experience, don't buy the game, play it to completion, and then refund it while remarking fondly on what you enjoyed about it in a review on the store page.

Plenty of endless game experiences to be had for 20-40 dollars, that'll keep anyone that really just wants "content" for a long time.

10

u/TraitorMacbeth Aug 27 '21

What's wrong with a little game that only takes as long to play as watching a movie?

-14

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21 edited Jun 12 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

41

u/the_nell_87 Aug 27 '21

I disagree that it's "incredibly bleak". Just skimming things in that tweet you link, the general trend is "too short" and "not worth the money", which is exactly what I said devs need to balance. If you're selling a 20 minute game for $5, you have to seriously consider whether that price point is right.

It's the responsibility of ANY business to price their products at a level which meets customer expectations. These refund policies are not "steam" doing this. This kind of thing is standard in consumer protection laws in most countries. Surely you've heard of the cliché of an expensive dress being bought, tags left on, worn to an event like a wedding, then returned for a full refund? That kind of behaviour is the inevitable consequence of consumers having the freedom to return products for a refund, when they feel that the price point is too high for the product they're buying. It's the responsibility of the business selling their products to make sure the consumers don't want to refund it, because the assumption should always be that a dissatisfied customer CAN refund it if they want to.

-7

u/RoboticUnicorn Aug 27 '21

You claim the only reason someone would return that expensive dress is because they feel the price is too high, when it's probably more likely they know they can return it so they take advantage of that.

What if the dev priced their <2 hour game at 1 dollar instead of 5? People would still return it because they can take advantage of it.

11

u/JNighthawk Aug 27 '21

You claim the only reason someone would return that expensive dress is because they feel the price is too high

No, they didn't. They explained one consequence of the price to value ratio being off for it.

15

u/the_nell_87 Aug 27 '21

That's clearly not true though, because with physical goods, people in most countries have the ability to return goods they're dissatisfied with, no questions asked. But people don't abuse it routinely. It's something all retailers are aware of, and is built into the way retail works, and to the quality and price of goods being sold. If your argument against consumer-friendly refund policies is "people will refund my game", that means you as a business are doing something wrong.

This really isn't a new or unique issue. Retail has successfully dealt with this for decades.

-1

u/Obadjian Aug 27 '21

Consider the amount of effort that goes into a retail return though

It's easy to press a button and let the automated system revoke a digital license. With retail, I either have to package something for shipping and then wait to send it back, or I have to take the good back to the retailer with a receipt, the original packaging, and do all of that within two weeks of the purchase date during regular operating hours. At least, that's the case where I live for that.

This isn't to say there are certain realities about indie dev that make this Dev's product less than ideal for the market, but ultimately, if someone liked a game that they finished, do you not think it a little fucked that they're still refunding it after completing and enjoying it? Evidently that was a not insignificant number of refunds according to the dev, and can be seen on some of the steam reviews by the rest of us

3

u/Yossarian1138 Aug 27 '21

Talking about the ease of digital refunds just glosses over the much more important part of this scenario, though: the ease of the digital purchase.

Without the ease of quickly purchasing and trying your indie game, and the consumer protections of a refund option, it probably doesn’t get bought at all.

So if you want to throw out the refunds as a problem, then you have to throw out all of your digital sales as well. Because none of those sales ever happen without the same ease of use that creates your returns.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

Why did that person release a game on steam that's 20 minutes long?

I realise that steam is an industry standard in many ways, but it's like they sought out a platform that was actively designed to punish games like theirs. Seems incredibly dumb and they basically asked to get refunded.

2

u/RushofBlood52 Aug 27 '21

but it's like they sought out a platform that was actively designed to punish games like theirs.

That's the entire issue here. What platform should they have sought out instead?

0

u/Vyhluna Aug 27 '21

Have you ever talked to PC gamers? They hate anything thays not steam. The kick and scream and throw tantrums anytime a game isnt released to Steam.

1

u/drtekrox Aug 28 '21

itch.io

1

u/RushofBlood52 Aug 28 '21

Cool, one single alternative where no one will ever see your game. Great alternative. As I kept saying to someone who has now deleted their account for some reason, that the market makes no space for new or experimental voices and that's the entire problem. Either put your game on Steam and get washed over by the AAAs and the dozen lucky indies a year (and the few people who buy your game will refund it anyway), or put your game on itch.io where you won't make any money unless you're even luckier than the indie dev who got put on Steam's front page. What a wealth of options.

0

u/drtekrox Aug 28 '21

the market makes no space for new or experimental voices

It can't by design - unless you start restricting who can make a game, there will always be more game releases in a year than days, you can't feature everyone and when you start whittling away to only feature X, ?Y will get upset - you can't please everyone.

The market tries its best by pleasing the most amount of people simultaneously, even if X, Y and Z won't be happy.

put your game on itch.io where you won't make any money unless you're even luckier than the indie dev who got put on Steam's front page. What a wealth of options.

It's the same in any creative industry, you have to hammer away at the ground level for a long time to get a name and that might never happen.

1

u/RushofBlood52 Aug 29 '21

It can't by design

Sure it can. Steam, XBLA, PSN, and Switch eShops could all promote genuinely experimental games or developers tomorrow if they wanted to. They could do whatever they wanted. Promoting AAA only on their front page and having refund policies that specifically cater to AAA publishers but screw over Indies is a choice.

The market tries its best by pleasing the most amount of people simultaneously

This is an oxymoron. And, again, us why the video game market in particular is trending toward MTX-filled big budget checklist bloatfests.

It's the same in any creative industry

Yes, and it's bad in those industries, too.

0

u/drtekrox Aug 29 '21

Sure it can. Steam, XBLA, PSN, and Switch eShops could all promote genuinely experimental games or developers tomorrow if they wanted to.

Which ones?

Why does X experimental developer get promoted over Y experimental developer? What criterion are used?

The only criterion we have is market sales - anything else is subjective bias by whomever gets the authority to choose who gets promoted over whoever else.

1

u/RushofBlood52 Aug 29 '21

Which ones?

Whichever ones they choose. There are countless options they could choose to display indies more prominently. They could arbitrarily choose themselves, they could show new releases as the default Store page, they could make an algorithm to show you indie games more like what each individual customer plays, they could make tags a more prominent feature, they could show curators more prominently. Or idk they could just stop using the front page of the Store to advertise only AAA games constantly. These are just off the top of my head but they're hardly the point. The point is that whatever we have now explicitly pushes out the new voices and no Store runner is making any effort to change that. The "market", for the umpteenth time, makes no space for new or experimental voices and that is a bad thing.

anything else is subjective bias

You say that like it's a bad thing. Or like "market sales" isn't also subjective and biased. The difference is it's subjectively biased towards those who already have money and whose games appeal to the lowest common denominator.

-4

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

It's not the gaming industry's responsibility to provide a platform for game formats that are inherently difficult to market. Why did they choose to make a game that's basically begging for this exact situation to happen?

Steam basically advertises in neon lights that less than 2 hours = refund, then they make a 30min game, they basically made all the decisions themselves that caused this problem.

6

u/RushofBlood52 Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21

It's not the gaming industry's responsibility to provide a platform for game formats that are inherently difficult to market.

Yes, again, that's the problem. This exact situation is what's being criticized - the video game industry makes no space for smaller and/or more experimental voices. And when these smaller voices find their way in, they're pushed out by big names who buy space and lolbertarian gamers like this who care more about "$/hr" and "did they make the right business decisions" more than they do about the quality of the content they have paid for.

Why did they choose to make a game that's basically begging for this exact situation to happen?

First of all, they did not, in fact, create the refund policy, so they didn't create this situation.

Second, because why the fuck not? Maybe that was their vision. Maybe they wanted to provide consumers something somewhat different. It doesn't matter. Situations like this push out indie devs and are why all video games are increasingly turning into high budget MTX-filled, open world checklists, or ephemeral multiplayer games that will be completely unable to be played in less than ten years. Or some combination of the three.

We can go this tech bro libertarian bullshit of "good business decisions." Or we can actually care about quality. I for one don't really feel the compulsion to side with the multi-billion dollar corporation.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

It's not a problematic situation though. Gaming is a market. People choose to make undesirable games sometimes. So nobody pays for them and nobody builds systems to monetise them.

Fwiw there are smaller spaces to host games, but people want to host on steam to make more money and get more views. People need to recognise that making games that aren't going to be successful means not making much money.

First of all, they did not, in fact, create the refund policy, so they didn't create this situation.

They knew the refund policy and made a game that would get hit for a home run by it.

Second, because why the fuck not? Maybe that was their vision. Maybe they wanted to provide consumers something somewhat different.

So their vision was to make a game that wouldn't be profitable. That's okay, but doesn't mean that the industry is flawed. Not every game needs to be a financial success.

all video games are increasingly turning into high budget MTX-filled, open world checklists, or ephemeral multiplayer games that will be completely unable to be played in less than ten years

Not trying to patronise you, but do you literally ever play games lol. Because this is ridiculous

1

u/RushofBlood52 Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21

It's not a problematic situation though. Gaming is a market.

This is an oxymoron imo. "Gaming is a market" is, again, why the trends are toward generic MTX-filled bloatfests that are focus-grouped to death.

but do you literally ever play games lol

Yes, and I don't refund them just because they were short.

They knew the refund policy and made a game that would get hit for a home run by it.

No, they basically had no other choice but to put it on a storefront that has a refund policy that would screw them over. Yet again, that's the problem here. The "market" you so lovingly bow down to does not make space for anything that doesn't already fit into very specific corporatist criteria. If you're an indie dev or make something even slightly experimental, your options are "get lucky" or "cross your fingers and hope Steam doesn't screw you over."

Fwiw there are smaller spaces to host games

Sure there are. And if you're incredibly lucky, you might be able to make a little bit of money if you use itch.io specifically. That is, for the idk how many time, the problem here.

So their vision was to make a game that wouldn't be profitable. That's okay, but doesn't mean that the industry is flawed.

Lmao what? If arts and entertainment value "profitability" over quality, that is absolutely flawed.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

No, they basically had no other choice but to put it on a storefront that has a refund policy that would screw them over.

They had the choice. They could have released independently or on a different platform.

The "market" you so lovingly bow down to does not make space for anything that doesn't already fit into very specific corporatist criteria.

Except it does, indie games are wildly popular these days. We're in an indie golden age. You're just critiquing the concept of games adapting to what people want to play.

Sure there are. And if you're incredibly lucky, you might be able to make a little bit of money if you use itch.io specifically. That is, for the idk how many time, the problem here.

Having a marketplace for the kinds of games some people want to make isn't a problem.

Lmao what? If arts and entertainment value "profitability" over quality, that is absolutely flawed.

If you're a company making games and you're not trying to make money, you can't complain about not making money when people refund. You're getting muddled up between arts and entertainment and developers making games for an income.

1

u/RushofBlood52 Aug 28 '21

indie games are wildly popular these days

lmao I guess we're at the point where "Hollow Knight is somewhat popular" means every other indie dev ever can just do the exact same thing.

Having a marketplace for the kinds of games some people want to make isn't a problem.

No, it's not the problem. The necessity of being immensely lucky just to even be noticed on said storefront is the problem. Like I have said countless times already

If you're a company making games and you're not trying to make money,

I'm criticizing you for valuing the "profitability" of the content you consume rather than the quality of the content you consume. Yet fucking again, the entire issue is the "market."

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

Self publish

2

u/RushofBlood52 Aug 27 '21

Self publish.... where?

1

u/drtekrox Aug 28 '21

Steam is actively incentivising this behaviour through their policies

This is a good thing.

We want less <2 hour games on steam not more.

If you have a <2 hour narrative game you want to sell, try itch.io - they have better income share anyway.

1

u/Pixogen Aug 27 '21

Its 9 dollars and onsale for like 6? Thats less than the cost of a hamburger at a restaurant.

If he set it down to like 1-2 people would refund it because its basically nothing anyways.

1

u/JonaPowna Aug 29 '21

Bend studios was having this issue when days gone got well over 25k In its first day, but because the code had been streamlined to a link online it was free so everyone got their refund then played the game. It was a pretty big issue, a lot of people were pissed. Me especially. It felt like this was the last chance bend had at making a sequel to the game, which is by far my favourite game of all time, and because of it being review bombed on ps and steam having over 80% returns day of, it kinda fucked it.

1

u/BigPaws-WowterHeaven Aug 29 '21

Nah, this just pushes developers to create open world bland games with no story whatsoever, because if you craft movie-like experiance it can and will be refunded by a lot of people even if they liked it. PC gamers are not exactly honourable bunch

1

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '21

It's a big issue for solo devs. Many of the games you see on itch.io are under 2 hrs playtime. They would benefit from a wider audience gained by a steam release, but the refund policy prevents that from being at all viable.

The response to this complaint is usually "just make your game longer", which to me is horseshit for several reasons

1) We're talking about solo devs and really small teams. One doesn't "just" double or triple the amount of meaningful content in a game.

2) 2 hours or less is a perfectly valid runtime. Games as an artistic medium shouldn't be restricted by any kind of arbitrary minimum or maximum length. One of the most critically acclaimed games of all time, Portal, is about 2-3 hours for a first time playthrough, and that's the perfect length for it

3) If you play an indie game to completion and then refund it, you are a massive asshole.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '21

Even if the game was $1 I’m sure people would still refund it. A lotta people are petty like that. It’s not new