Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dansmithers]

4 days later- still didn't get my refund

those fuckers

[alway]

https://twitter.com/qwiboo/status/607234020372418560
https://twitter.com/qwiboo/status/607274032975577088
So, small, short ($2) indie game on Steam with 89% rating? 72% refund rate. Still need more data to confirm it's a trend (probably won't see much data until the end of the month), but it certain sounds like the sort of thing this article was talking about: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AndrewPellerano/20150604/245208/Steam_Refund__Friend_or_Foe.php

In short, this is the sort of thing devs are afraid of happening, as there are an awful lot of short, inexpensive games that could be harmed by effectively having a forced 2 hour free demo of a game that only lasts an hour or two.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Why not just have a demo that lasts for 2 hours? Also making sure your game has more than 2 hours of gameplay is a pretty decent start. I'll be taking my Nobel Prize in solid einsteinium.

[BigD145]

The game could always turn off alt-f4 and refuse to shut off for 3 hours.

[Neonivek]

Of course they are making articles about how Steam Refunds are bad

Because Steam Refunds mean that all those TERRIBLE games made to trick people into buying them won't work anymore (which is a HUGE market)

So they are going to throw any excuse they can to try to prevent it.

see these eyes? See their lack of tears?

Just patch the refund system so it doesn't work on games with play times shorter then 2 hours.

[Scripten]

Why not have the devs specify the minimum play time for their game, then display them in the store as part of the game info screen? Short, cheap games will likely have the same number of people buying them, even if the refund feature is turned off earlier, but without the risk of chronic refunding. Not only that, but dev studios will likely want to advertise a longer play time, avoiding a lot of the scam games that promise the moon and deliver a sub-par experience.

[Neonivek]

Why not have the devs specify the minimum play time for their game, then display them in the store as part of the game info screen? Short, cheap games will likely have the same number of people buying them, even if the refund feature is turned off earlier, but without the risk of chronic refunding. Not only that, but dev studios will likely want to advertise a longer play time, avoiding a lot of the scam games that promise the moon and deliver a sub-par experience.

No... no... It won't happen that way because games do not work off of loyalty.

Give that option and none of them will allow refunds. Why would they want to? It means less sales off their game because someone didn't want it.

[Sappho]

This is, in fact, the law, and it's kind of crazy that it took this long to happen. However, I don't think they're doing it because they are being forced to follow the law. I think they're doing it to try to steal customers back from bundle sites. Presumably you can't get a refund for a game you don't buy through the Steam store. 99% of the 384 games in my library were bought through bundles (or on the Humble store, etc.), and I'm far from unusual. I think they figure someone is more likely to buy a game directly from Steam if they know there's a chance they can get a refund for it, rather than go for a slightly cheaper price from another storefront.

Personally, I hate hearing people attack short games. I'm a busy adult with too much to do and not enough time for games: I PREFER games which are 2 hours or less. And some of the most important, meaningful experiences I've had playing games have been with very short ones. As long as the price is low, I encourage developers to make short games. Cut out the grinding and the fluff and let me enjoy the meat of your experience in a couple hours or less, and I'll give you a couple dollars/euros in return.

I don't think they'll do it, but if they really want to put in some kind of protection for short games, just add a "time to complete" section to game reviews. Users can say whether they recommend a game, write a review if they want, and (optionally) select the number of hours they think an average person would get out of the game. It's already something in demand, hence howlongtobeat.com - just integrate that with Steam. Any games that average less than 3 hours according to user reviews should get a 30-minute trial period instead of 2 hours. The developers can put in the time they think it takes to beat when they first post the game, but once there are X reviews with time estimations, that overrides the dev's original estimate, so devs can't break the system. Alternatively, they already track user hours in a game - they could simply show the average time played (or the median) and base it off that.

[Neonivek]

write a review if they want

As someone who has written quite a bit of reviews.

DEAR GOODNESS is it dreadful if you don't share everyone's opinion. People rate "helpfulness" as to whether or not they find your review entertaining AND if it follows their opinion.

In fact the vast majority of "Did you find this review helpful?" you will find on a game are from people who already own the dang game and are just there to mark down reviews that are contrary to what they say.

and NOW if you mark down reviews enough, they won't even be shown. I have quite a few reviews that were marked down a lot simply because they weren't glowing recommendation or because "UGH! your review was long"

Yeah reviews are not going to fix the system. Even on GameFAQs they had the intelligence to realize "Hey, people who like a game might negatively view a negative review" but Steam seems to think people don't function that way. And pain be to someone who writes a positive review on a game that is HATED!

[aristabulus]

...
Personally, I hate hearing people attack short games. I'm a busy adult with too much to do and not enough time for games: I PREFER games which are 2 hours or less. And some of the most important, meaningful experiences I've had playing games have been with very short ones. As long as the price is low, I encourage developers to make short games. Cut out the grinding and the fluff and let me enjoy the meat of your experience in a couple hours or less, and I'll give you a couple dollars/euros in return.
...

I think there's an important distinction between short games, and games with short sessions.

Kairo was a short game, all in all; I got through it in about 5 hours with minimal googling.  It did not lend itself to short sessions, though; being a puzzler in essence meant a lot of wandering, pondering, and head scratching.  IIRC, I did one area per session (total of three areas).

Most 4x strategy games are awful for short sessions, in spite of typically having robust save systems...  Once you're in the moment, the momentum of the game tends to keep you playing; there's a reason Civ 1 had all the compulsion horror stories before MMOs became a thing.

One Finger Death Punch was excellent for short sessions, with each area generally only taking a couple minutes per attempt, and it was easy to get a sense of actual progress with a 15-20 minute session.  The game was easy to pick up, and easy to put down.  I ended up sinking about 20 hours all together into OFDP, and I definitely felt like I got my money's worth; I didn't "finish" it or go chasing achievements, as my wrists told me I had reached the limits of my capability.

I too have grown to appreciate shorter games as I get older... but particularly shorter sessions, and above all, games that actually end.

-----

I don't think the refund policy change is going to alter how I buy games.  I rarely spend more than 5 bucks on a single title, and that's cheap enough in my mind to gamble on whether the experience is good or not.  If I don't like the game, I chalk it up as wisdom earned, and move on.

[Sappho]

write a review if they want

As someone who has written quite a bit of reviews.

DEAR GOODNESS is it dreadful if you don't share everyone's opinion. People rate "helpfulness" as to whether or not they find your review entertaining AND if it follows their opinion.

In fact the vast majority of "Did you find this review helpful?" you will find on a game are from people who already own the dang game and are just there to mark down reviews that are contrary to what they say.

and NOW if you mark down reviews enough, they won't even be shown. I have quite a few reviews that were marked down a lot simply because they weren't glowing recommendation or because "UGH! your review was long"

Yeah reviews are not going to fix the system. Even on GameFAQs they had the intelligence to realize "Hey, people who like a game might negatively view a negative review" but Steam seems to think people don't function that way. And pain be to someone who writes a positive review on a game that is HATED!

Yes, I'm aware of this. I also write a lot of reviews and have gotten some pretty absurd flaming for some of them. However, my point was not that the reviews themselves will impact the refund process. The reviews already exist, and I don't suggest changing them in any way. I only meant to suggest *adding* an option (drop-down menu) to say how much time you think the game takes to finish. Or the "time to beat" item could be completely separate from the review system - I only suggested adding it to reviews since that system is already in place. This time rating would be what determines whether the game is considered "short" (30 minutes max before getting a refund) or normal/long (2 hours). Steam would have to implement an automatic system to determine the average gameplay time (selected from a drop-down menu with categories like "less than an hour", "1-2 hours," "2-10 hours," "10-30 hours", etc.). Surely there are some people who would be dishonest, but I think the reviewed gameplay times would average out to being pretty accurate as more and more people rated it, since most people are fairly honest (and usually eager to share whether a game is long or short).

Aristabulus, I agree - I'm not likely to change my buying habits, either. I also usually only get very cheap games, and even if I don't really enjoy a game, it would take a lot for me to actually demand my money back. I think I'd only do it if either the game doesn't work on my computer (that's happened a few times), or if I felt I was deliberately misled about the content of the game. Anyway, it's so rare that I buy a game through Steam itself that it hardly applies.

[LordArchibald]

I totally get why they would want to put that limit there, but that's not how it works. The law's the law. Yeah, it means you get people 'buying' cameras, going on a vacation, then returning the camera.

You don't buy a game on Steam IIRC, you buy a service. Also, it's trivial to prevent EU from meddling with the game you developed, just make it "alwalys online" and it is a service So, as a player I would prefer to not push the subject or we will end up with all games requiring internet connection or being F2P.

Now the refunds.
As a developer I like it:
- it makes some angry/nervous devs to quit Steam (there is a talk about it on dev forums) so it means less competition for me
- it makes certain genres I don't make extinct (short games)
- it increases consumers confidence (willing to try more games)
As a player I have mixed feelings:
- it makes F2P more popular among devs (and I think there is no shortage of these ATM)
- it encourages "always online" (so players can't buy your game (DRM free), copy it to another folder and get a refund while keeping the game), sure, they could pirate the game in the first place so it's a moot point, but most devs don't think that way
- it makes some devs less willing to make games (yeah, devs are not normal people, not all of them are reasonable, well, no surprise, no sane person would try to make a living making games in the first place
- it makes some genres extinct (short games); for example, as a dev I would not release that game http://www.silverlemur.com/minigames/radioactiveshelter/ as a full blown PC game because, even though it's a fun game and could be made with proper graphics and so on there is no way the gameplay for it would last 2h (and as a player I would not mind getting a few games like that one on Steam)
- we are back to the old "you need to impress your consumer during the first 2h", so another incentive for focusing on graphics, simple gameplay (why if they got confused and want a refund! let's make a game for idiots) in expense of lontermgameplay (who cares if my game has good replayability, all that count is the first 2h)

So, yeah, I like it, I make strategy games mostly so I will be unaffected by the refund system (it's no way to test a strategy game in 2h, so as long as my game does not crash on startup or every single turn, the players won't be effectivelty able to get a refund, so I'm in the old system , it makes consumers more confident and willing to explore and it hinders my competitors
Only if I were not also a player, it does not look so bright from that point of view...

[a1s]

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AndrewPellerano/20150604/245208/Steam_Refund__Friend_or_Foe.php

Logic invalid (kinda) because unless you live in butt-crack of Russia or Nigeria, you can reuqest a refund back to your credit card or paypal account. They mention this in the announcement, and they keep their word:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Note: I'm not even American or British- I'm getting this from Eastern Europe.

The main point of the article still stands, I suppose: risks will grow (debatable, but seems logical enough) and developers will need to step it up. But it's not a Valve plot to ruin the indies.

[Sordid]

I like how he says "I now have the ability to try a 2 hour demo of any game I want, rate limited by the turnaround time on a refund request" as if that's a bad thing. Every other industry is perfectly fine with the 14-day no-questions-asked refund policy mandated by EU law, I'm sure the gaming industry will manage somehow too.

[Vortex Rikers]

https://twitter.com/cliffski/status/607490264475836416
https://twitter.com/cliffski/status/607491581923500032

How dare these people dislike my games and request a refund? Screw making a fun game, lets find new ways of bleeding consumers of money instead.