Steam's two-hour refund policy leads to indie developer quitting game development - $8.99 for 90 minute games

[XMassAllYearRound]

The game in question doesn't even show up in my storefront because I have the Walking Simulator tag blacklisted, I thought we were past the Walking Simulator era but I guess the blacklist is just doing too good of a job lol

 

[GenericEdgelordSupreme]

Did you actually play New Vegas at release? The game was neigh unplayable. More so than any Bethesda game.

You're also completely negating that they didn't have to do any engine development, and also had support from Bethesda when issues did arise.

Not to mention, there's been plenty of games that have been developed in a year or less that were not nearly as unplayable as New Vegas was at release.

But hey, they had a deadline so it's okay if the game is sloppy shit at release. As long as it eventually gets good, then it can be proclaimed a shining example of top quality.

You're right, that's exactly what I said. You're definitely not projecting or anything. Who plays games right when they launch anyway? It's extremely common for games from generations with internet-connected consoles to launch broken because of an unrealistic deadline. The publisher, not the developer, makes the decision to release an unfinished product because they want profit sooner and don't care if consumers pay $60 for a game that's borderline unplayable. Sometimes they even ship a beta version on discs then have a day 1 patch. Not that I approve of these practices, but they've unfortunately become industry standard.

 

[Screw Danlon]

Valve was literally forced to introduce a refund policy after they were sued in Australia for violating their consumer laws.
If it was Valve's choice they would still have no refund policy at all.

Which is ironic, because IMO the refund policy is probably the biggest thing they have done to help quell piracy - most games I pirated were to see if they were worth buying and would work on my PC, but now that I know I can refund games if they suck, I don’t need to do that anymore.

and a lot of other people I know are similar.

 

[NerdShamer]

Which is ironic, because IMO the refund policy is probably the biggest thing they have done to help quell piracy - most games I pirated were to see if they were worth buying and would work on my PC, but now that I know I can refund games if they suck, I don’t need to do that anymore.

and a lot of other people I know are similar.

Well, Valve shot themselves in the foot by saying "your laws don't apply to us because we're Americans!" twice.

But I've been looking into it and it turns out that the Aussies are pretty anal about that refund policy; it's at the point to where buying an warranty is almost superfluous. But I'm not sure if there's expiration date for an refund, over there.

 

[Vindeo]

These comments!
"This game was great, and to all the people who played it and returned it, you are the scum of the planet and I hope you get herpes on your face."
"The refund exploitation really sucks, but on the bright side I wouldn't have found this game if this situation didn't happen - I came straight here after reading about it in the news. Hopefully many others will have a similar reaction to me and you'll get enough funding for your next game! Until then, don't let a bad situation ruin an otherwise promising career and lifelong passion."

I hate fragile customers. Is it a value or not. Enough fee fee reviews.
10:00 for two hours? I would do it too.

Guys remember Myst? That was like a handful of dudes YEARS ago.

I hate the atmosphere these people create in the game industry. Developer Simps and cocksuckers are the scum of the earth. Not someone who paid for your shitty game and then returned it for being shit.

Less dev dick sucking and more player freedom of choice in the gaming industry plllss and thanks!

 

[Spamton]

I think it says something that I wouldn't have bought the game in the first place. If it's 99% cheapass jumpscares there's no reason for me to play it. That shit isn't fun most of the time, just annoying as hell.

 

[LegoTugboat]

Well, Valve shot themselves in the foot by saying "your laws don't apply to us because we're Americans!" twice.

But I've been looking into it and it turns out that the Aussies are pretty anal about that refund policy; it's at the point to where buying an warranty is almost superfluous. But I'm not sure if there's expiration date for an refund, over there.

Not sure for software, but for physical goods, it's 3 years or 'a reasonable amount of time'.

The latter is if you buy a TV or something, and 3 years and 1 day later, it dies, that way the store/company can't go "Nope, out of warranty, fuck you."

Most of the time, the warranty/added cover thing really doesn't do much, it just makes a company less likely to ask questions/screw you around.

 

[mr.moon1488]

If a dev is charging enough for a less than two-hour game to make people want to do this, then they get what they fucking deserve. I've literally played free browser games that kept me playing for over two hours.

 

[NerdShamer]

I've literally played free browser games that kept me playing for over two hours

Well, you don't have to be ashamed to admit that you play those anime for porn games, we won't judge you...much.

 

[Dollar Store Sentai]

There are a few walking sim games that are 2 hours and under that are (imo, of course) $10+ and well worth the experience to keep.

That Dragon Cancer, The Beginner's Guide, The Stanley Parable, Superliminal if you don't suck at puzzles.

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

There are a few walking sim games that are 2 hours and under that are (imo, of course) $10+ and well worth the experience to keep.

That Dragon Cancer, The Beginner's Guide, The Stanley Parable, Superliminal if you don't suck at puzzles.

At least Stanley Parable had multiple endings.
I'm gonna threw a case about indie games who can generate unlimited content and one of them is Wrestling Empire. Funny game if you ask me despise being simple as fuck.

 

[UzumakiLeaf]

If you are going to make a short two hour game charging $10.00 it needs to really bring something new to the table. As I mentioned in my last post, compared to all the other games on the market and the price point, what makes yours stand out?

I even think a two hour game can be worth $20.00 in theory, but it had better be something really, really special that blows my mind (10 is hard enough to justify).

 

[BlazikenLover]

Anytime I see an indie dev whine and make the rounds on gaming websires I observe with extreme suspicion. I have learned to do so evee since I saw indieshits whine about greenlight (because getting people to vote for your game was too hard), then its removal (now everyone is putting trash on steam and nobody will notice my indie game!) And lastly whined about the 30% cut steam takes and how great epic games store is for offering better rates.
Not to mention the whole thing with indie awards and the like which is controlled by a circlejerk of assholes won't even nominate your game if you are not part of their group or how said circlejerk was secretly friends with game journos who put out great reviews.
Tldr: don't trust indies whenever their sob stories make the news

 

[Milwaukee Macho Man]

Tldr: don't trust indies whenever their sob stories make the news

I just think of that hipster faggot phil fish every time and laugh.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Make better games. Carrion barely lasts two hours and that game is awesome. Guess why? Because it's fun wrecking shit as an amorphous blob of gore. I've played art games that also had good gameplay, so don't even use art as an excuse.

Carrion may or may not go under my definition of art.

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole]

Who plays games right when they launch anyway?

I don't know the current numbers but the rule of thumb for publishers used to be that 80% of the lifetime sales could be expected in the first two weeks of launch. This type of thinking can still be seen, if the price of a game is dumped shortly after release it's because it underperformed during the launch window.

In conclusion, who play games at launch? The overwhelming majority.

 

[GenericEdgelordSupreme]

I don't know the current numbers but the rule of thumb for publishers used to be that 80% of the lifetime sales could be expected in the first two weeks of launch. This type of thinking can still be seen, if the price of a game is dumped shortly after release it's because it underperformed during the launch window.

In conclusion, who play games at launch? The overwhelming majority.

I guess it's a matter of preference then. I prefer not to play games that aren't finished, so I usually wait until they've patched out the many bugs that are always present at launch instead of overpaying for an unfinished product like the overwhelming majority. You're welcome to pay $60 apiece to bug test games before I buy the patched version for <$20 though, if that's what you're into.

 

[cummytummies]

it's okay if the game is sloppy shit at release. As long as it eventually gets good, then it can be proclaimed a shining example of top quality.

I actually, genuinely, unironically believe this. Subjecting yourself to the bugginess at launch is nothing but a matter of your own lack of patience.

Fine, in a perfect world every game gets released in a complete state. But that's not the world we live in, and you should know that.

I personally don't have any hang-ups about playing games a year, two years, five years after release date. And if the final product is great, it's great. Not my problem some people volunteer themselves to pre-order or betatest.

 

[X Pac Heat]

I actually, genuinely, unironically believe this. Subjecting yourself to the bugginess at launch is nothing but a matter of your own lack of patience.

Fine, in a perfect world every game gets released in a complete state. But that's not the world we live in, and you should know that.

I personally don't have any hang-ups about playing games a year, two years, five years after release date. And if the final product is great, it's great. Not my problem some people volunteer themselves to pre-order or betatest.

This is one of the most retarded takes I've ever seen. Especially when we are talking about Obsidian who have had at least 3 of their games fixed by fan patches. (New Vegas, Alpha Protocol and KOTOR 2 come to mind)

This doesn't even get into how it's a horrible trend for game development, as most are not going to be able to pull a Hello Games stay solvent fixing or waiting for fans to fix their games for 2+ years.

 

[cummytummies]

This is one of the most retarded takes I've ever seen. Especially when we are talking about Obsidian who have had at least 3 of their games fixed by fan patches. (New Vegas, Alpha Protocol and KOTOR 2 come to mind)

This doesn't even get into how it's a horrible trend for game development, as most are not going to be able to pull a Hello Games stay solvent fixing or waiting for fans to fix their games for 2+ years.

I'm not defending releaseing games unfihisned. I'm with you on that, and all it says about the "horrible trends for game development" and all that. I do wish games weren't released unfihisned.

But the fact of the matter is that they are, both good and bad games. That's the modern industry standard. I don't like the standard, I don't defend it. But as an individual buying games I'm capable of identifying that trend, and NEVER buying games on release. So if one of these games released unfinished games eventually turns out to be great as a result of content patches and fan patches and all that I can recognize it. Games both good and bad go through that cycle, and the ones that end up good I have no trouble identifying as good.