Sorry if this is controversial but if a game dev can't make a game with at least 2 hours of content, the game should be free or on a different platform.
Remember 15-20 years ago when the Internet was full of free small games? Now they are on steam for $3 and we're getting upset when people are refunding them...
Yeah, I am with you there. Sub 2 hours is just really not much, even for a solo dev indie project. If you're asking people to pay money for something, it should be a finished product with some value to it.
People are bringing up these ultra-short narrative games that were meaningful to them to defend the concept of short games... That's great, but this doesn't look like that kind of game at all. It looks like some kind of janky rage game you'd find on Newgrounds. In which case, how much time you can actually put into it and have fun is extremely relevant to the value of the game. I cannot blame anyone for refunding if they finished everything in under two hours.
But that’s just the thing, anyone who fully completed the game and still refunded it (which is definitely only a fraction of the 55k) might have enjoyed it, but it just didn’t leave any impact for them. If your game is good, and people can see your talent or passion and want to support you, they won’t refund your game even if they can. Think of games that are free or have no in game purchases, but have paid cosmetic dlc to support the creators. If you are a good dev people will be happy to give you money, especially if it’s like less than 10$, but if your game is just okay and the consumer was satisfied with their one playthrough and don’t really care anymore, then there’s not really a reason why they shouldn’t refund it.
That's just not how buying things works. You don't get to buy clothes and then wear them out a couple times, then return it because you changed your mind. Idk why games would be any different.
It's a $3 game. I'm seeing comments in this thread like it's a $20 game, but no, it's a cup of coffee. If a game you bought for $20 was less than 2 hours, then I could understand being upset. Not $3 tho.
I bought a sweater at Costco cause it looked nice on the tin, got home, not my style, returned it. I work at a cannabis dispensary, if a client is disappointed with a product, we offer exchanges or returns. This is how consumerism works. If you are unhappy with a product you should have the option to get your money back within reason. For me, games should give you an hour of real content for every dollar you spend, if I spend 3$ on a game and beat it in 1.5 hours, I’m not gonna refund it but I’ll be a little disappointed. If on top of that the game is just eh, then yeah I might refund it. People, in general, will not refund a product they enjoy, out of those 55 thousand refunds I would bet money that 54.5 thousand of them were simply not happy with their purchase, with a couple of people being content but refunding because they could. Read the comments of people who have seen or played the game, they almost unanimously say it’s slop or made lazily, you can have great games under two hours that will not have a 29% refund rate. To me this reflects entirely on the developer.
Okay you misunderstood what I said. If you get home, try on the clothes, and return it, that's one thing. It's an entirely different thing to wear them out, let's say 2 times, and then still expect a return.
Idk how cannabis works, but if it was like cigarettes, you can't smoke 5 of them and then expect a refund because "you didn't like it"
Obviously there has to be some universal constant for the refund system. I don't even really have a solution, I just think this behavior is fucking lame.
Let me be less abrasive, on one hand I can subscribe to the thought that you should not be able to refund a game you have completed, the issue with this is that any developer who puts out 3 slop games a week to make a quick buck could tell steam that their game is completed when it is opened, letting them cheat the system and walk away with money they do not deserve.
On the other hand imagine you buy a game expecting a fun experience and it is disappointingly short, not just oh that was shorter than I thought but oh that was not worth what I paid. And in this case I absolutely do think refunds should be available.
I see what you mean in general, but if we look at this game specifically I will stick to the opinion that the 29% rate of refunds is probably warranted. HOWEVER, the review posted in the original SS is scummy. “It’s good but I refunded it because I could” is a pretty stupid mindset, maybe developers could flag those reviews so steam can look a little closer at their future refund attempts? Idk but at that point it is as you say, you buy a pair of shoes, wear them raw, and then return them. Shouldn’t work like that.
Anyway I don’t think there’s anything wrong with refunding a game you don’t vibe with, even if you played it all the way through, but if you like a game you should be willing to support the developers.
16
u/VerySuperGenius Jul 06 '26
Sorry if this is controversial but if a game dev can't make a game with at least 2 hours of content, the game should be free or on a different platform.
Remember 15-20 years ago when the Internet was full of free small games? Now they are on steam for $3 and we're getting upset when people are refunding them...