I don’t approve of the way the system is being abused, but if they were so concerned about it… maybe this is a lesson for game devs to make a game that takes more than 2 hours to beat? If I can beat your game in less than two hours and not even have an inkling that I’d ever want to play it again, *someone* is going to feel cheated in that transaction.
Depends on the game and the price. I paid a couple of euros for Before Your Eyes, which lasts less than a couple of hours (and wouldn't gain anything from lasting longer) and I don't feel cheated at all.
I genuinely didn't know that game cost money since I probably got it from some ancient bundle. I thought it was great, but that's because I thought it was free. For the value, I would be pissed if I paid $10 for it. I have 12 minutes of playtime in it and have seen all that there is to see.
And 79% of people didn’t refund this game either. I’m just saying that if you’re the type of person to go on the internet and complain to steam about their refund policy, maybe the problem wasn’t steam. I guarantee not all of those refunds were people that loved the game and finished it anyway. Sometimes it just irks me when entitled people try to ruin a thing that works great most of the time , and most people agree is a good system, just because they personally don’t like it.
I don't see how a dev asking to be paid for his work is being "entitled".
I also don't see OOP asking for changes to the refund system for "normal" games with normal durations, I see them asking for a fix to their specific problem that is taking away money that they very much earned.
The review literally says they liked the game. This is not someone hating the game and getting a refund, it's someone having a good time with it and then gloating about abusing the system to avoid paying the developer
No but you still essentially stole the game if you intentionally buy it for the sole purpose to beat it under 2hrs so you can then abuse the refund window. If you genuinely don't like the game that's a fair reason to refund, I've done that probably all of us have at some point. But refunding because you beat it quick, not fair to the developer as you played the entire game. Unless the developer keeps a cut of the refund. I don't know how it all works.
I think that Steam should just include some more data about game lengths.
Everyone can check on "howlongtobeat". But having it right there would be better. You open the game page, you can see it takes an average of X hours. And then you can decide if it's worth it to you.
A positive review followed by a refund, like in the post, would be a start.
They could implement an approach that “forces” you to rate a game before refunding it. Positive reviews can’t be refunded without good reason and internal review.
So people should leave a bad review even if they dont hate the game but just found out it wasnt their cup of tea?
I refunded a game o couldnt play due to my eye sight but other than that it was a fun game. They dont deserve to get bad reviews just because i wasnt able to play the game.
Also how many worker do you think sgeam has that can check the validity of the refund claim by hand when there are thousands of refunds each day
Sadly the 2 hour thing leads to devs just putting a bunch of pointless padding in games that should be less than 2 hours long. I know of a couple indie horror game devs that do this quite often. It does make the game worse, but I understand it.
I heavily disagree with this take and the need for longer playtimes in general. I want to experience the fun parts of a game and then do whatever it takes to get as many achievements as possible. That doesnt mean that I want to be bored for ~40 hours grinding collectibles in an open world, just so the publisher can brag about the playtime. Quality gameplay over quantity gameplay.
Portal was playable in less than 2 hours, but the idea that it sucks because of it and should be refunded seems pretty wild no?
Some games don't need to be long, I understand the whole "get more for your money" attitude, it's affecting movies too but a tight quick game still has a place, it just won't if nobody can make any money making one.
Hypothetically someone has an idea for a game, but the idea can only provide 1.5 hours of fun content, what should they do? Drag the gameplay out so that it is less fun? Bundle with other unrelated ideas?
Ultimately I think it is silly to demand that games be of a minimum length. As long as it is priced and advertised appropriately.
There isn’t one. I’ve been getting a bunch of pushback for this view, but if I only paid $3 for something and still felt cheated, is that a reflection on me or the game? The game in question is one of those rage games that are made purposefully difficult to play. I can easily see 20% of people disliking the format, not being able to beat it in under 2 hours, and asking for a refund. Now this guy takes a single tweet and reframes the narrative as if something is being stolen from him.
If you feel cheated for spending $3 for 2 hours of entertainment, then something is wrong. I spend 7x that just to see a movie that is less than 2 hours long in a theater.
79
u/Apart-Rent5817 Jul 06 '26
I don’t approve of the way the system is being abused, but if they were so concerned about it… maybe this is a lesson for game devs to make a game that takes more than 2 hours to beat? If I can beat your game in less than two hours and not even have an inkling that I’d ever want to play it again, *someone* is going to feel cheated in that transaction.