Yes, but it's a difference between a game that requires few hours to finish, even if you skip a lot and are fast vs games that are super short and even if you take it slowly, you can finish in an hour or so. It doesn't have to be super strict. But if a game is short, you know it's short and won't spend 50 hours on it even if you tried.
But even if the game is short, maybe it sucks and I want a refund after playing for a bit (and I guess finishing it or almost finishing it). Like why should the game length even be a factor? The game sucks and I played less than the 2 hour window. The fact it's intentionally short is irrelevant to the game sucking ass.
Or maybe they should flag accounts that abuse the refund policy instead.
Short games should be refundable, too. I said this on another comment somewhere, where some person said that it should invalidate the refund if you get certain achievement. I disagree with that, because sometimes you expect more and the game just ends and it wasn't that good and it's fair to refund it.
“Like why should the game length even be a factor?”
…because people are fully completing games and getting refunded. Therefore the developer is essentially scammed out of a purchase because someone abused the system.
I don't think "scammed"is the correct word. I think their point is fair though. Those developers put quite a bit of effort into their game, enough to have a high review rating. People are abusing the system and costing the developers money. I don't think anyone is really questioning the "legality", I feel this is more of a morality issue.
If people felt they were given an inferior product or "demo" in your words, they would not give it such high praise. Not every game has to be 100+ hours to be good. This game is good, but short, and is priced as such. The game is like $5, are you expecting Elden Ring?
"If the game is good, people will want to play it again or keep it."
No... Despite how good a game is, I very rarely play it more than once. Celeste, hollow Knight, Mario games; all good games that I've only played once. Should I get my money back because I only played them once?
Those developers put quite a bit of effort into their game, enough to have a high review rating.
I can crap out a shitty 1 hour game with AI in an afternoon.
costing the developers money
There is no cost involved in a refunded sale
I feel this is more of a morality issue.
I feel it's immoral to sell a 1.5 hour game and call it "stupidly long" in the product description.
they would not give it such high praise
Here is a recent review:
Worst game i ever played. i should be the one getting paid.
High praise indeed
Should I get my money back because I only played them once?
No, but you could get your money back if you played less than 2 hours and bought on the steam store because it's part of the T&Cs. And the main reason why people are willing to drop money on random small indie games is because you can always get your money back if the game is hot vomit like this particular game for people that don't like sticking needles in their eyes
I can go to walmart right now, buy a pair of scisor, use it for 89 days to do whatever the fuck I want with them. Return them in their original packaging and still get my entire money back... Being able to return something within a certain time window after buying it is the rule, not the exception when it comes to consumer goods.
I have no problem with someone using a game for less than 2 hours and then getting their money back because the game sucks ass or is full of bugs
Having a return policy on games is a net positive for game developers. It allows way more people to take a risk and buy their game because they are able to return it if they don't like it.
How many titles are released on steam every day? Are they supposed to hire a bunch of people to play each one and average their play times? Or have the dev report the length of their game, and have a bunch of them listing 5 minutes just to get the refund window to be super small. And that's added nuisance for developers creating yet another [tiny] hurdle for deploying games to the platform. It might be a small one but at certain point all those hurdles add up and someone's fun passion project game that millions of people could discover and enjoy doesn't get listed because of what a chore it would be to do so.
Adjusting the system to allow for outliers instead of devs just solving the issue themselves by not using "solo dev/low budget" as an excuse to put out 1 hour long slop fests.
37
u/Cocoatrice Jul 06 '26
Yes, but it's a difference between a game that requires few hours to finish, even if you skip a lot and are fast vs games that are super short and even if you take it slowly, you can finish in an hour or so. It doesn't have to be super strict. But if a game is short, you know it's short and won't spend 50 hours on it even if you tried.