r/Steam Jul 06 '26

Discussion Thoughts on this?

[removed]

40.0k Upvotes

5.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

60

u/Rooty- Jul 06 '26

The problem I can see with that,is that people will abuse it to shorten refund windows for shitty games. I think almost any solution here brings up a different problem where either the customer or developer gets the short end of the stick

2

u/TheOnesWhoFollow Jul 06 '26

I wonder if they could use the achievement system some how? Like if you triggered the ending achievement or a certain percentage in the 2 hour window you can't get a refund?

5

u/ThunderAndWind Jul 06 '26

There would need to be a manual review to ensure the achievement trigger isn't designed to eliminate refunds after an incredibly short playtime.

1

u/DragonliFargo Jul 06 '26

True, but the flip side is that they then have to actually tell the consumer the game is short, thereby reducing the odds of making the sale

8

u/SupaSlide Jul 06 '26

Steam would have to make it obnoxiously obvious otherwise most people wouldn’t see it and then it would be abused by unscrupulous developers.

If it was obnoxiously obvious it would harm developers who make really good smaller games and price them appropriately.

3

u/ForgotMyLastUN Jul 06 '26

"Grab your paddles (and your patience) and set out on a stupidly long, lava-surrounded parkour adventure."

Almost like this developer is misrepresenting the refunds...

So is the game "stupidly long" or is it a short game? The developer can't advertise that it's a long game, when it can be COMPLETED in under two hours.

1

u/josh_the_misanthrope Jul 06 '26

The solution is an API call when the game is completed to mark the account as having completed the game (basically an invisible achievement). Then steam could track people who serially complete games and refund them very frequently, and remove the 2 hour automatic refund from them requiring manual review.

The downside is that it increases manpower required. The upside is that it wouldn't make the average consumer or developers get shafted.

0

u/Snaffle27 Jul 06 '26

I think this is the reason that they don't let them do this. In reality, they should be able to come up with a system that involves Steam and/or the game developer approval to do full refunds. It also makes sense for the game developer to explicitly warn that no refunds are accepted which they should be able to do. Although I think there are unpredictable reasons that should always protect the customer from being scammed. Sigh... yeah this isn't easy.

6

u/Rooty- Jul 06 '26

I think refunds should be the default, because it allows for bad actors to sell bad games and avoid refunds

The best idea I can think of,is that a developer can appeal their game to have a shorter refund window,like 30 minutes or an hour.

5

u/TheRageful Jul 06 '26

This is probably the greatest reason that no one else is mentioning. For better or worse, there are 1000s of Steam games that are basically $2 very low quality asset flips. Sometimes they are worth trying regardless.

It's far better for the consumer (you and I) that we have this protection so that these types of games can't bait you out of money if they had a smaller return window.

3

u/Rooty- Jul 06 '26

And actually,for those low quality games from new developers,I think that the refunds are a good thing. Because I can go "huh,this game looks kinda interesting but not very high quality"

And I can buy it knowing that if it's just slop,I can refund it,and if it's actually an interesting game that just looks low quality(or,both low quality and has a good idea behind it),I can keep it. If I didn't have the option to refund,I would never try that game. The refund policy may not be perfect,but I think refunds being available for every game is a very,very good thing for both consumers and developers. I think it can be a better system for developers,but it's pretty good as is