3 ms·

I have refunded plenty of games for just not being fun. You are right that they are awesome value if they are good but I don't see why I should pay $20 if I don

I have refunded plenty of games for just not being fun. You are right that they are awesome value if they are good but I don't see why I should pay $20 if I don't feel like I will ever pick up the game again and got less than an hour playtime. Without refunds I would simply not purchase one unless I was sure it was good value, but with refunds I will buy something based on a few pictures on the store and see if I like it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I think that falls under the "being a dick" category just a little bit, personally. This isn't donationware, you don't get to only pay if you like the product. There's a description, screenshots, reviews, etc. to determine if you're likely to enjoy the game or not and if you buy it but it just doesn't grab you, I think that's a lot like paying for a sandwich that looks good but turns out is bland and flavorless, it's disappointing sure but I'm not going to demand my money back since I was delivered precisely what was advertised. Of course, if what they advertise is misleading then that's a different story.
- foxpurple 5y ago
  It’s different because it’s a digital product. If you return a sandwich, the product and some human time was wasted. If you refund a game. Nothing was lost. And if people feel free to buy more games knowing they can return the ones they don’t like, it ends up in more sales and more profit. What logical difference is there between studying the reviews and screenshots over playing the game for 30 minutes and working out yourself if you like it?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > And if people feel free to buy more games knowing they can return the ones they don’t like, it ends up in more sales and more profit. Actually I don't think that's necessarily true. We tend to be more judgmental of things we get for free than things we had some investment in. By having a "demo-style" return policy you're possibly being more critical of the game than you would be if you had no opportunity to get your money back. Not to mention the scheme's effect on shorter works. You could play all of a one hour game and then decide after the fact it wasn't worth the money. At least one developer has quit game development because of this, which means that there is a pressure to ensure that every game on Steam lasts at least two hours, and that'll probably take the form of having the best stuff locked away until after the two hour mark. > What logical difference is there between studying the reviews and screenshots over playing the game for 30 minutes and working out yourself if you like it? I'll admit, I can't meaningfully articulate the difference it makes when you pay for a game and then take your money back vs not paying for it. But consider this: how would a 30 minute demo of a game be different than the first 30 minutes of the full game? Like screenshots and reviews it would be designed to give you an overview of the complete game experience it is trying to sell you, whereas the first 30 minutes are what is necessary to get the game going.
    - SilverRed 5y ago
      It is true that games with less than 2 hours content are not viable under this model, but the market has spoken and generally agreed that games should provide many hours of entertainment. Either through fun looping gameplay like bloons TD, or online experiences, or if it is based on a limited story line, they must have a massive story like Skyrim or GTA 5. This is what the market of gamers are demanding and I do not see that changing or that it is an issue. These days it is common for people to spend huge amounts of time on a single game. It is completely normal for someone to say "I have spent 1000 hours on Minecraft/CSGO/Skyrim over the last 10 years" so companies have to adapt to building games that last a decade and can generate recurring sales through things like graphical updates and extra content.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        Just because that's the trend doesn't mean that we should, as individuals, encourage it. The same way I don't watch reality TV even though the market is clearly into them, nor would I support systems that would discourage the creation of other kinds of shows.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

I think that falls under the "being a dick" category just a little bit, personally. This isn't donationware, you don't get to only pay if you like the product. There's a description, screenshots, reviews, etc. to determine if you're likely to enjoy the game or not and if you buy it but it just doesn't grab you, I think that's a lot like paying for a sandwich that looks good but turns out is bland and flavorless, it's disappointing sure but I'm not going to demand my money back since I was delivered precisely what was advertised. Of course, if what they advertise is misleading then that's a different story.

foxpurple 5y ago
It’s different because it’s a digital product. If you return a sandwich, the product and some human time was wasted. If you refund a game. Nothing was lost. And if people feel free to buy more games knowing they can return the ones they don’t like, it ends up in more sales and more profit. What logical difference is there between studying the reviews and screenshots over playing the game for 30 minutes and working out yourself if you like it?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > And if people feel free to buy more games knowing they can return the ones they don’t like, it ends up in more sales and more profit. Actually I don't think that's necessarily true. We tend to be more judgmental of things we get for free than things we had some investment in. By having a "demo-style" return policy you're possibly being more critical of the game than you would be if you had no opportunity to get your money back. Not to mention the scheme's effect on shorter works. You could play all of a one hour game and then decide after the fact it wasn't worth the money. At least one developer has quit game development because of this, which means that there is a pressure to ensure that every game on Steam lasts at least two hours, and that'll probably take the form of having the best stuff locked away until after the two hour mark. > What logical difference is there between studying the reviews and screenshots over playing the game for 30 minutes and working out yourself if you like it? I'll admit, I can't meaningfully articulate the difference it makes when you pay for a game and then take your money back vs not paying for it. But consider this: how would a 30 minute demo of a game be different than the first 30 minutes of the full game? Like screenshots and reviews it would be designed to give you an overview of the complete game experience it is trying to sell you, whereas the first 30 minutes are what is necessary to get the game going.
  - SilverRed 5y ago
    It is true that games with less than 2 hours content are not viable under this model, but the market has spoken and generally agreed that games should provide many hours of entertainment. Either through fun looping gameplay like bloons TD, or online experiences, or if it is based on a limited story line, they must have a massive story like Skyrim or GTA 5. This is what the market of gamers are demanding and I do not see that changing or that it is an issue. These days it is common for people to spend huge amounts of time on a single game. It is completely normal for someone to say "I have spent 1000 hours on Minecraft/CSGO/Skyrim over the last 10 years" so companies have to adapt to building games that last a decade and can generate recurring sales through things like graphical updates and extra content.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      Just because that's the trend doesn't mean that we should, as individuals, encourage it. The same way I don't watch reality TV even though the market is clearly into them, nor would I support systems that would discourage the creation of other kinds of shows.