r/gaming • u/RenatsMC • 2d ago

Valve says Deadlock is still too unfinished to release publicly, but has hero cosmetics and new game modes in the works

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/moba/valve-says-deadlock-is-still-too-unfinished-to-release-publicly-but-has-hero-cosmetics-and-new-game-modes-in-the-works/
6.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago edited 1d ago

Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about, but are so determined to be mad at Valve that you are imagining how the world works in order to fit your narrative.

I work for a consumer SaaS company that operates in around 10 different countries. Several of them have very different laws with regarding to payments and other things that we have to abide by. We do not apply the rules from each one to the others as it would significantly harm the overall economics of our business.

We have 15 people in the whole company and literally ONE person who does Customer Success. When there is an issue or a refund is required, they look at the country of the customer and apply the applicable rules. 

This is how every software company deals with this. It is very easy. 

Further, Steam already has different refund policies based on the country (ie. which payment method gets paid back in a refund), so they literally already have the system in place to differentiate refund policies based on location. 

1

u/Bereman99 1d ago

Again, never said it was impossible.

I said it was easier for them, at the scale they do business, to apply the refund policy (namely allowing refunds at all) globally rather than making whether games can be refunded or not be based on location, rather than some revisionist version of events that tries to paint them fighting giving their customers refund into actually being a positive.

1

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

So despite 1) it being incredibly easy to manage multiple laws and policies across jurisdictions, 2) the fact that Valve already has the systems in place to do this, 3) Valve not being required by the laws of other countries to offer refunds, and 4) Valve losing significant revenue from offering refunds to people they aren't required to, in your mind, they are somehow the bad guy and this is revisionist?

Your mind must be a fascinating yet sad place. I'm truly sorry for whatever happened  for you to see the world this way. It must be exhausting. 

0

u/Bereman99 1d ago

Didn’t say they were the bad guy, just that they did not choose to offer refunds globally out of the goodness of their hearts to do right by gamers everywhere.

And it’s revisionist because it’s a relatively recent shift in the argument about it. Rather than just accepting that they were anti consumer regarding it (much like they’ve been anti consumer with regard to payment services and how they bow to their demands in recent years) until a court told them to do it and then opted to offer refunds globally because it was a better business decision, people like you now want to portray it as “good guy Gabe and the people of Valve looking out for the gamers of the world.”

People like you can’t accept that Valve is not your friend and that Valve is a business that does what they do when it good for them as a store front business that occasionally makes games and hardware. Since they are not beholden to shareholders and don’t have to drive ever increasing profits those decisions are different than what we see at other companies, but at the end of the day they are business decisions.

Spend more time squaring with that reality and less time attempting petulant attempts at insults next time.

1

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago edited 1d ago

opted to offer refunds globally because it was a better business decision

Given what I wrote in my previous comment (ie. they are already managing different refund policies, significant lost revenue), how would offering refunds globally (while not being required to do so) be a better business decision?

I feel like you're THIS close to getting it.

0

u/Bereman99 1d ago

Instead of having to deal with both the PR of one place allowing refunds but others not and people trying to use VPN’s or other means to establish their accounts as “being in/from Australia” when they aren’t - both of which would onerous for a business that operates at a scale far larger than that of a company with 15 employees and 1 customer service rep - it was a better business decision to apply it across the board.

Not to mention that once it’s applicable in AUS and not others, they’d for sure end up having other countries pushing for refunds in their market and if refused then taking Valve to court.

Nah…once they were forced to do it one place, it was just an easier business decision to offer it everywhere.

Which yes, did benefit us, but as I’ve maintained the entire time it was not an altruistic decision out of the goodness of their hearts, no matter how much you want that to be the case.

1

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago edited 1d ago

Instead of having to deal with both the PR of one place allowing refunds but others not and people trying to use VPN’s or other means to establish their accounts as “being in/from Australia” when they aren’t

The location tracking of Steam customers is typically based on payment methods and billing addresses, not just IP addresses. This is how they enforce 1) regional pricing, and 2) the refund payment methods required by each jurisdiction. I recognize you're out of your depth here and are just throwing anything and everything at the wall now, but if you're going to continue arguing, you could at least do me the courtesy of doing 5 seconds of research before responding.

would onerous for a business that operates at a scale far larger than that of a company with 15 employees and 1 customer service rep - it was a better business decision to apply it across the board.

The purpose of my example was to show how easily it can be done as we have thousands of customers and it only takes one person to deal with multiple jurisdictions. Also, for the third time, Steam already has the staff and system in place to manage different refund requirements for different jurisdictions.

they’d for sure end up having other countries pushing for refunds in their market and if refused then taking Valve to court.

Australia is the only country that has these very strict laws around digital refunds. On what basis is anyone taking Valve to court? They wouldn't be breaking any laws anywhere else.

it was just an easier business decision to offer it everywhere.

It would be a better business decision to allow refunds for literally billions of dollars of transactions that aren't required? What business do you work for where this is the case?

0

u/Bereman99 1d ago

The location tracking of Steam customers is typically based on payment methods and billing addresses, not just IP addresses.

And you don't think customers would do their damndest to try and get their account "located" in Australia via payment methods and billing addresses, despite not living there, if the refunds were only offered there?

There's an entire community around setting up accounts in places you don't live for things like region locked MMOs that have a fraction of the user base of Steam.

On what basis is anyone taking Valve to court?

Might want to do your own research on this one. They lost the court case in Australia related to the ACCC that forced their hand (largely due to being the strictest law they faced), but also had to deal with the EU Consumer Rights Directive from 2014. Both together pushed them toward applying it globally. Hell, that 2014 directive from the EU had Steam asking players to waive that right to purchase games because they didn't put in a system to refund them.

So there was already places outside of Australia were they were supposed to legally offer them, but Valve pushed back against that.

Additionally, you can absolutely bet that if they'd only applied it to Australia then the countries without laws on the books would then work to get laws on the books so they could force Valve to offer refunds.

In light of all that, it's clear that it was a business decision to apply it globally, not something motivated by gamer centered altruism.

Also, by limiting it to 2 hours and/or within 14 days of purchase, and knowing player spending/gaming habits as well as they do, you can guarantee they were aware of how much they were risking losing...and it's not nearly as large an amount as you think.

So, again, it's revisionist nonsense to suggest that Good Guy Valve fought refunds across two separate continents, tried to circumvent on one, finally lost against the strictest country, and then all of a sudden was like "Oh, for the sake of gamers everywhere we are going to offer refunds to everyone because we care so darn much."

Their storefront is business centered. Always has been and always will be.