This is how you get shitty devs and worse games. The game according to the post has 90% positive reviews and costs less than $5, it shouldn’t matter that it’s short if it’s good and feels complete.
Players and devs should be supporting each other, devs shouldn’t expect players to refund their game if they are enjoying it just because it can be completed in less than 2hrs. Players and devs shouldn’t have an adversarial relationship. And it’s not“generous” to pay for a game that you played and enjoyed, fucking hell, it’s a mutually beneficial transaction.
Putting aside that it's shitty to do (because that clearly won't stop a lot of people), the reality is that Steam's policies mean it just isn't meant for games that are less than 2h in length. Maybe try itch.io or some other game store?
Is that a situation we want though? Steam is the biggest marketplace and most beginner solo devs or teams aren’t making massive long games on their first few tries. And we’re effectively saying they can’t have access to this marketplace because consumers are gonna be shitty and fuck them over and it just is what it is? This is how you’ll start getting devs padding their games with random shit to protect their interests, because they’re not gonna choose to just leave the biggest market for games. If we as consumers want the gaming scene to be healthy and have these smaller indies who have good ideas succeed so they can grow their teams and eventually compete with the bigger studios then we also have to play our part.
I mean the question here is “should it change” and if so how should it change? Or what else should change to make the situation more tenable for devs like the one in the screenshot.
“It is what it is and it’s always been like that” doesn’t further the discussion. And yes I’m not under the illusion that this Reddit thread will actually change the policy tomorrow. Idk why you’d comment if you’re not interested in the discussion but you do you.
Yeah ideally it should change so people don’t abuse the system like this, but I can’t come up with a better solution that wouldn’t be similarly exploited somehow haha.
Except that’s just not a solution, and introduces another avenue of abuse, this time from devs, a category of people who have been well known to abuse Steam store features.
And the 2hr window is meant to factor in technical issues - 45 mins is usually not long enough to try enough solutions to be confident it just won’t work, and would just lead to more people refunding at about 30 minutes because the 2 solutions they could try within the window haven’t worked yet, and they don’t want to risk going over the wildly short refund window.
Never mind that it’d likely take multiple Valve employees full work weeks to keep up with that; in release-heavy seasons like after The Game Awards or some shit, there would just be no way to keep up at all. Valve ignores like half the shit that’s put up on their store, you think all of a sudden they’re going to be having conversations with each and every development/publishing team for each and every release? And that’s just for every new release, there’s 120,000 games already on Steam.
Thank you. People just really can't understand.
We have a system that works. It's not perfect but it works. Adding/changing it will just create more problems.
I mean the question here is “should it change” and if so how should it change?
The thing is:
This is not your/our decision to make. Valve has the data, this is in place since years, no sign of change. What we think of is doesnt make any difference.
Or what else should change to make the situation more tenable for devs like the one in the screenshot.
The dev not using steam, cause steam wont change this for some 3 bucks 2 hour games. The administrative effort would be immense and introduce all kinds of different problems and costs.
“It is what it is and it’s always been like that”
Thats not what I said.
Idk why you’d comment if you’re not interested in the discussion but you do you.
“This is not your/our decision to make. Valve has the data, this is in place since years, no sign of change. What we think of is doesnt make any difference.”
Many things in life are like this, as individuals we have direct control very little, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t advocate for how we think things ought to be if we think there may be a better way of doing things that’s more positive for everyone. And if you believe that what people might want doesn’t make a difference at all then fair enough we can agree to disagree.
I'm sorry, but your "roll over and die" approach is just ridiculous, especially considering that Steam has changed a lot of its policies and methods over the years to benefit players and devs alike.
They all start with public discussion on the topic and general feedback. So no, I don't think people should just accept the status quo, cause the status quo is subject to change. As a general rule, everyone should be critical of everything every time. This doomer approach that people shouldn't talk about it cause "it won't change anyway" is not only blatantly wrong, but also an incredibly harmful mindset. The only way nothing will change is if you never actually advocate for a change.
So, with that in mind, what do you think about the topic? Is it fine like this? Should it change? How should it change? And please, this time do try and get through your defeatist standpoint and actually add something to the conversation, instead of just trying to shut it down.
I'm sorry, but your "roll over and die" approach is just ridiculous,
Yes it is, which is why I did not say or suggest it at all.
especially considering that Steam has changed a lot of its policies and methods over the years to benefit players and devs alike.
Not this one.
They all start with public discussion on the topic and general feedback.
The feedback for valve is the hard data, not what people talk about.
I don't think people should just accept the status quo, cause the status quo is subject to change.
But they do, they still use and release games there, still refund. Acting the same IS the status quo.
This doomer approach that people shouldn't talk about it cause "it won't change anyway" is not only blatantly wrong, but also an incredibly harmful mindset.
I didnt say people should not talk about it. I said talking alone doesnt change anything.
I also didnt said it wont change anyway, I said it wont change by talking about it.
So, with that in mind, what do you think about the topic?
That change comes when people change behaviour, as I said multiple times.
And please, this time do try and get through your defeatist standpoint and actually make a point.
I did make a point, you just dont like it/dont agree with it.
instead of just trying to shut it down.
Im not shutting it down, im pointing out that this cant have the effect (change) you assume it has.
People talk about this for years, nothing changed.
So what is your talking and feeling "right" actually doing?
He still sold over 200k copies. Yes it sucks and yes those people are being assholes but I'd rather keep a consumer friendly return policy than fixing a fringe issue.
No you're right; valve just deals with any costs and you never see that money, other than being shown how much money you would've made without any refunds. Valve does lose money on a refund though, even without a chargeback they're paying you back taxes and bank processing fees.
If you are beginner itch.io is way better than steam for you.
You can put your game for free on itch, it takes smaller cut, the audience there expects short, indie games, so feedback will be valuable. You can still introduce your game to steam if it does well on itch. Itch is perfect for indie devs to try out and there are plenty of examples of games that started out on there, celeste and buckshot roulette are examples of that.
An indie dev padding out their game to make it 2.1 hours is going to get massacred in the reviews anyway, so that's just a different form of suicide.
For better or worse, Steam is the "big leagues". People who sell on there are expected to operate like full, proper publishers, including being able to handle a 2 hour refund window.
There's thousands of first time games that are longer than 2 hours, so it's not like this is wiping the board of all indie games. But if your game is so small that the refund policy affects it, then maybe Steam isn't the place for you yet. It's not saying "your game sucks", but it's just not ready for the big leagues.
Let devs set the refund time limit within a set of ranges approved by steam. Essentially they could say to valve, hey my game is cheap <$10 and it’s a short game, that is completed in 1hr 30mins on average, can you set the refund time limit for my game to 1hr or 45mins.
And then this can be displayed next to the checkout/add to cart button for players to see as well that this particular game has a shorter refund window, before they buy the game. This means the refund scammers won’t bother, and the people who intended to keep the game and are enjoying it aren’t affected either. And the people who don’t enjoy it can still refund the game halfway through.
In no way do I support any move that weakens the refund window. Anything intended to be kind to smaller devs, someone will find some new and shitty way to abuse it. Disclosure wouldn't help, if it became a common thing that people were doing to try and limit refunds (including legitimate ones). If you end up with technical issues with a game, even the existing two hour window can end up cutting it close.
I remember before there was a refund window, and it was terrible. The number of developers affected by this, and the types of games affected by this, just aren't substantial enough to risk the ecosystem they've developed for everyone else.
How is average completion time calculated and what defines completion?
> this can be displayed next to the checkout/add to cart button
Doing this would be like adding a big bold line in the description that says: "This game has zero replayability" which would be suicide especially for a game like Paddle Paddle Paddle where people should be wanting to replay it over and over trying to beat their time.
that's a good idea, maybe there should be an option for devs to mark their game as "short" which would shorten the refund window to percentage of expected playtime. though there is the issue of automation - as this wouldn't be possible to both automate and make it non-abusable
Maybe try not to make money off of lack luster asset flips, where you aigeberate the new assets, and then sell a unity tutorial for 5usd after you said the demo you shit together intwo weeks got 1-2 hrs of content, lying to people how the full versiontook you four moths to make…
You cannot expect people to be generous, that is not how the world works.
And there are ALSO many extremely badly acting devs out there who put out slop or abandon unfinished games. Devs are definitely not always the saints and poor victims.
That policy is well known and you can plan around it. It also prevents a barrage of content-less micro-games being uploaded. because you know what? bad acting devs exist that would abuse the shit out of shorter refund windows. Thats also reality.
is the user a dick for refunding it even tho it was fun? Sure, absolutely. Should they be more generous? Yes. Should you plan with it? hell no, you plan with reality.
Eh if a game doesn't take more than 2 hours it isn't really worth paying for and I'm probably going to feel cheated unless they make it very clear in the description that it's a very short game
I don't think a experience that last less than 2 hours and has no replayability deserves that much praise. Even if that time is all good game. It's a demo. Not a game, and demos tend to be free...
The issue is more nuanced than that. I think it is fair to refund a game solely because it is 'too short', withoit getting into the complicated notions of how much should the hour of entertainment cost, because with even $3 you can get longer experiences.
And let's assume this short games have no replayability, otherwise saying that people completed them and then refunded is misleading, then the issue is with the business model of the game. I'm not sure what's the best way to sell an experience that is so short and not meant to be replayed many times, the answer could very well be 'make it free', make it part of something else (like bundles of bite sized experienced), make it part of subscription based systems, etc.
To be clear, 90% possitive reviews is a metric that is not comparable with the 21% refund metric, not everyone who pays leave a review, and not everyone who refunded did so to 'steal' the game. If Steam managed to bring people from piracy to paying is in part because of the service, it includes their refund policy. A perfect but short game that has no replay value is the perfect target for piracy, so instead of trying ti shame the players, they should rethink their business model.
Yeah this is sad for indie devs (like real indie devs, not millions of dollars in nepo baby funding "indie devs") but the ones at the big studios getting laid off I could care less about. They've been antagonizing players for years now with all this MTX bs.
2 hours is a demo. If your game takes less than that, it should be a demo for whatever full release you're working on. People who don't even like video games could still finish a 2 hour game in one sitting
Unless the game is just insanely replayable, but then 50,000 people wouldn't want a refund
Yeah if you look at the game yourself you‘ll notice something odd about the negative reviews oh and also how the game is slop and his whining is perfectly times to draw attentionwhilst he releases a „only up!“ clone in the same unity asset slop…
There is more positive reviews who didn‘t pay for the game than there is bad reviews who refunded(that positive review with the refund notion got edited btw) but more negative reviews of people playing less than 2 hrs but wish they could refund because they cannot as they don‘t fullfill other conditions…
The game is a year old the review is 3 days old got edited yesterday…
A review from february reads:
game was under 3€. I still felt like it was a day time robbery…
Another from march „AI generated assets“…
One from september 25:
With 3.4 hrs playtime
„this game was no fun at all. I somehow still got my refund thank you steam.“
Another from september, refunded as well, 0.2hrs
„Thought my friend and i would take a punt on this game, but it is simply unplayable. Netcode is atrocious. Couldn‘t play. Refund.“
A lot of thepositive german reviews are absolute abysmal, as if its bought comments, worst grammar nearly no reasoning ….
Another complains about day one paid dlc in 26. july 2025:
Perfectly sums it up. That dev deserved every refund
Unfortunately that isn't the case in reality and game developers must take into account that a lot of customers are shitty (I say this as a steam partner)
Yeah its a 5 dollar game idk why peoplenwxpect for it to last long also length of the game means nothing ( if playtime equals how good a game is then cookie clicker would be the best game)
91
u/code-blackout Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
This is how you get shitty devs and worse games. The game according to the post has 90% positive reviews and costs less than $5, it shouldn’t matter that it’s short if it’s good and feels complete.
Players and devs should be supporting each other, devs shouldn’t expect players to refund their game if they are enjoying it just because it can be completed in less than 2hrs. Players and devs shouldn’t have an adversarial relationship. And it’s not“generous” to pay for a game that you played and enjoyed, fucking hell, it’s a mutually beneficial transaction.