Steam

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

According to Eurogamer Valve said getting a refund and then buying it again because it went on sale would not be considered abuse of the refund system.

 

 

Many stores just give you the difference back. This isn't unheard of.

[TheMightyEthan]

I know, I just mentioned it because the way Vecha said it seemed strange.

[Mister Jack]

[Mister Jack]

 

Total Biscuit pretty much sums up my opinion of this whole "Wahh steam refunds hurt indie devs" controversy.  I have no sympathy for these people who want to release games that are under two hours and then overcharge for them.  You can return practically every other kind of product there is for a refund if it turns out to be a piece of crap, and I don't see why PC games should be a special exception to that rule.  If you want to release a short game, make it a good one and price it right.  No more free rides for shitty developers.

[FredEffinChopin]

I haven' read any of the devs' actual bitching, but having read in here that some have, my immediate reaction is:

 

You can return practically every other kind of product there is for a refund if it turns out to be a piece of crap...

 

This here is the argument to beat, and if they can't do so (which they cannot), they should, in their own best interest, stop revealing how desperately they're trying to cling to anti-consumer practices. It's a bad look. Steam has a problem of selling games that aren't always functional, either generally or in specific operating environments, and if they're taking steps to rectify it, they shouldn't be impeded by those who are afraid that such a large portion of Steam users are corrupt that they'll no longer be albe to make bank on their $2.99 products.

[Baconrath]

 

 ooooooh~

[Thursday Next]

You can return practically every other kind of product there is for a refund if it turns out to be a piece of crap, and I don't see why PC games should be a special exception to that rule.  If you want to release a short game, make it a good one and price it right.  No more free rides for shitty developers.

 

Firstly, from my point of view games are not a product, they are a service. Like a theme park or a restaurant. You don't so much "buy a game" as buy a lifetime ticket to access a game.

 

Secondly, what's the "right" price for a short game? That's like assessing how much to pay for a meal based on weight. A small plate can only cost $5 or else you must offer a full refund even if someone ate and enjoyed all of it?

 

If you look at it from that point of view, then while a restaurant will give you your money back if you say your food is bad, they might be less inclined to do so if you have licked the plate clean. A theme park ticket might (but probably won't) be refundable if you've only been there a short time and found that some rides are broken, but it is much less likely if you everything is working and you have jumped on the three biggest rides and then split. Similarly, if you've played a game to completion picking clean all the content then I can see why it might not be fair to claim a full refund.

 

All that said, it is up to the developer if they want to offer refunds or not. Valve aren't mandating this. If you think that you have a good reason for not offering "no quibble" refunds, then I say go for it. I think that most people won't exploit this system, plenty of people on steam pay for games and never play them, so the idea of paying, playing and refunding is probably not going to occur to most. There will be a few who exploit the system but they will soon be caught on to and stopped.

 

A lot of the reaction is just that, a reaction. There hasn't been enough time to fully prove out the system, and as we saw with paid mods, if it is as broken as some think, Valve will switch it off.

 

I wonder if a scaleable refund would be workable? It would effectively make all games "pay what you want". Perhaps you could top that back up to the current price in the event that you want to access the game again..?

 

Thanks for the correction Ethan.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Thursday Next

[FredEffinChopin]

 

You can return practically every other kind of product there is for a refund if it turns out to be a piece of crap, and I don't see why PC games should be a special exception to that rule.  If you want to release a short game, make it a good one and price it right.  No more free rides for shitty developers.

 

Firstly, from my point of view games are not a product, they are a service.

 

That sounds pretty arbitrary. What do you base that on? A single-player game is not something that someone needs to labor to provide you. You buy it and the machine does the rest.

[TheMightyEthan]

Are you sure devs have a choice about it?  The Steam refund page makes it sound like it's across-the-board.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

WRT Thursday's reply: You are sort of leasing games, right? Even physical copies of games never really belong to you like, say, a bowl would. Maybe that's what he's getting at?

[Thursday Next]

 

 

You can return practically every other kind of product there is for a refund if it turns out to be a piece of crap, and I don't see why PC games should be a special exception to that rule.  If you want to release a short game, make it a good one and price it right.  No more free rides for shitty developers.

 

Firstly, from my point of view games are not a product, they are a service.

 

That sounds pretty arbitrary. What do you base that on? A single-player game is not something that someone needs to labor to provide you. You buy it and the machine does the rest.

 

 

Source: Every EULA ever... e.g. https://account.mojang.com/documents/minecraft_eula "When you buy our Game, we give you permission to install the Game on your own personal computer and use and play it on that computer as set out in this EULA."

 

You are buying permission to use something. Not buying a thing. The physical disc belongs to you. But you don't own and cannot share the permission to use it. As Tenshi says. You are kind of leasing games.

 

@Ethan: My mistake, some DLC refunds are up to developers.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Thursday Next

[FredEffinChopin]

That doesn't make it a service, that makes it a product with specific uses that are dictated by the terms of your purchase. To say you view it as a service, and liken it to a theme park or a restaurant where there is an environment that requires continued... well, service, makes it sound like you're making a statement about the nature of video games as a product; that they aren't things you buy and then use on your own, but that require continued service to be used. 

 

I just wanted to clear that up before addressing anything else in your post, since it seems to be a foundation for your conclusion that games are a unique sort of product that can't be bought and given a refund for. That being said, there are plenty of reasons you can get refunds at restaurants or amusement parks, and it used to be common that people left shitty movies early and got a refund. I don't know if that still takes place since I don't go to the movies. 

 

Scaleable refunds are something that occurred to me and that sound reasonable. It might be a little bit challenging coming up with firm rules, but I'm all for the protection of the integrity of the sales of short games, just as long as it doesn't interfere with a more important, relevant, and overdue change like the refund system.

[deanb]

Unlike two of the above I'm not a lawyer, but as I'm to understand it (points to Autodesk) EULAs mean jack shit in terms of "you don't actually own this". (at least in the EU, which is where a big thing of the whole "You must be able to refund on digital goods" stuff has come from where the american Valve have dragged their heals on complying with).

 

As for refunds n such, I use a bunch of SaSS at work, and if they're down or glitchy we get a refund for that month. So there's precedent there for stuff that actually is a service and not a product.

[Thursday Next]

That doesn't make it a service, that makes it a product with specific uses that are dictated by the terms of your purchase. To say you view it as a service, and liken it to a theme park or a restaurant where there is an environment that requires continued... well, service, makes it sound like you're making a statement about the nature of video games as a product; that they aren't things you buy and then use on your own, but that require continued service to be used. 

 

I just wanted to clear that up before addressing anything else in your post, since it seems to be a foundation for your conclusion that games are a unique sort of product that can't be bought and given a refund for. That being said, there are plenty of reasons you can get refunds at restaurants or amusement parks, and it used to be common that people left shitty movies early and got a refund. I don't know if that still takes place since I don't go to the movies. 

 

Scaleable refunds are something that occurred to me and that sound reasonable. It might be a little bit challenging coming up with firm rules, but I'm all for the protection of the integrity of the sales of short games, just as long as it doesn't interfere with a more important, relevant, and overdue change like the refund system.

 

That's exactly what it makes them, if it was a good and not a service, then ongoing terms would be impossible as you exhaust your rights to goods when you sell them to a consumer (nobody can tell you what to put in a bowl, not to break it down, or not to sell it on). Practically speaking almost all games these days are treated as a service in any event with software updates and what not. The disc is the medium through which the service of delivering an experience if provided. You can't return the experience of playing the game, any more than you can return the meal you ate, or the ride you went on at the theme park, so handing back the disc, or the 1s and 0s, or what have you, is meaningless, you've had the experience. (I'm not advocating whether that is right or wrong, I'm just saying that is the position of publishers. It's the justification for EULAs as a license to continued enjoyment of a service. It's the model the entire industry is built on.)

 

I'm actually in favour of refunds on games. EA has the Great Game Guarantee which is a brilliant service, it's good that Steam is catching up. I happen to think that EA's policy (within 7 days of purchase and 24 hours after first boot) is superior as many games, RPGs for example, have barely gotten past the tutorial after two hours. This puts AAA and indie games on the same playing field as most games can be ground through in a day (judging by how quickly people seem to get to the end of them on YouTube).

 

The cinema comparison is valid. If you walk out 90 minutes into Lord of the Rings (half way through), then you are more likely to get your money back than if you leave 90 minutes in to say... Airplane (2 minutes after the film is done).

 

@Dean: Yes, the law is catching up with this in some respects, but it's more in line with refunds for broken services, the concept that you can't sell your stuff on is still going strong, even in the EU. Though I doubt that will last forever (however, by the time the law catches up with us we're going to be streaming everything anyway).

Edited June 10, 2015 by Thursday Next

[Mister Jack]

To say that games are a service actually implies that there's...well, service involved, and the only games that I think even come close to fitting that definition are MMORPGs.  I don't count DLC as part of a service because most of the time you have to pay extra for it.  As for patches, developers are under no obligation whatsoever to ever release a single patch once a game is out, and if they do so it's either because they want to keep their customers playing longer or because something about their game was so broken that it was running the risk of affecting their sales.  If games really were a service, they would be expected to release patches regularly, and you would be entitled to your money back if they failed to uphold their end of the bargain, even before steam officially pulled the trigger on it.  I see games as a good, albeit a good you don't fully "own" in a legal sense, which has certainly caused some issues regarding used games that I hope we don't see again.

 

On a separate point, I think this idea that's been proposed of "letting developers opt out of refunds" is utterly laughable.  If developers could just decide not to give refunds, then how would we be any better off than we were before?  Any major developer (DICE, Ubisoft) could just knowingly release a buggy, broken piece of shit like they always do and then say "Sorry!  No refunds!"  I absolutely oppose giving any developer special treatment.  Everyone should have to take the same medicine.

 

Regarding the matter of finding the right price point for short games, there really isn't a single magic number that works across the board.  These developers really just need to use their best judgment to decide, realistically, how much the experience they provide is really worth.  I couldn't say where the sweet spot is, but I do know that charging 20 dollars for a 90 minute vignette like Gone Home is practically an insult.  I would feel ripped off as all hell if I paid 20 dollars for that game.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Mister Jack

[Mr. GOH!]

ThursdayNext: anti-consumer video game company shill and Kool-Aid drinker.

 

Whether or not games are products or services is debatable and the argument in some ways obscures the real issues consumers  actually care about. As a consumer, I don't care whether you label something as product, as a service, or as products with attendant services; I expect clarity as to my rights and my obligations. The biggest point of clarity is whether or not my purchase of game includes unlimited future use; I want to be sure that the seller will not arbitrarily shut off access to my single player game sometime down the road. If games all become session-based streams, well, I guess I'll be done with video games. But since that will not happen to every type of video game, I guess I'll just have to bid EA games adieu.

 

A lot of the argument is ephemeral; your bowl example, ThursdayNext, is only true as a result of the legal regime under which we live. It is not hard to imagine a different regime under which a seller could put restrictive covenants on the use of goods (much as sellers may do with real estate) that forbid the buyer to use the bowl in certain ways. 

 

I have also never liked the idea that you own the media but no right to the data on the media. I think software companies have consistently sought to expand the right beyond preventing IP infringement via copying, making arguments akin to saying that after you buy a physical book, the rightsholder can tell you whether or not you're allowed to read it. 

Edited June 10, 2015 by Mr. GOH!

[FredEffinChopin]

 

That doesn't make it a service, that makes it a product with specific uses that are dictated by the terms of your purchase. To say you view it as a service, and liken it to a theme park or a restaurant where there is an environment that requires continued... well, service, makes it sound like you're making a statement about the nature of video games as a product; that they aren't things you buy and then use on your own, but that require continued service to be used. 

 

I just wanted to clear that up before addressing anything else in your post, since it seems to be a foundation for your conclusion that games are a unique sort of product that can't be bought and given a refund for. That being said, there are plenty of reasons you can get refunds at restaurants or amusement parks, and it used to be common that people left shitty movies early and got a refund. I don't know if that still takes place since I don't go to the movies. 

 

Scaleable refunds are something that occurred to me and that sound reasonable. It might be a little bit challenging coming up with firm rules, but I'm all for the protection of the integrity of the sales of short games, just as long as it doesn't interfere with a more important, relevant, and overdue change like the refund system.

 

That's exactly what it makes them, if it was a good and not a service, then ongoing terms would be impossible as you exhaust your rights to goods when you sell them to a consumer (nobody can tell you what to put in a bowl, not to break it down, or not to sell it on). Practically speaking almost all games these days are treated as a service in any event with software updates and what not. The disc is the medium through which the service of delivering an experience if provided. You can't return the experience of playing the game, any more than you can return the meal you ate, or the ride you went on at the theme park, so handing back the disc, or the 1s and 0s, or what have you, is meaningless, you've had the experience. (I'm not advocating whether that is right or wrong, I'm just saying that is the position of publishers. It's the justification for EULAs as a license to continued enjoyment of a service. It's the model the entire industry is built on.)

 

It seems like you're conflating the legal constructs that dictate how video games are purchased and used with the nature of video games as a product as defined by their inherent properties in this discussion. When you say "...from my point of view games are not a product, they are a service." and then liken them to things that require continued service on the part of the provider in order for consumers to access them, you're making a statement about the nature of a product. To follow up an inquiry as to the similarities between those three perceived services with "You are buying permission to use something." is to completely move the goalpost.

 

The licensing terms are what are applied to the product (video games) to govern the way they are sold. If for some bizarre reason it becomes the garment industry standard to attach certain rights to the use of articles of clothing, it would not mean that my clothes are now a service. They can be made to be like a service in some respects by the people who create and distribute them, but there is nothing about articles of clothing that make them a service by nature. If, in that strange hypothetical situation, someone were to say "I view clothes as a service, personally." and then justify it by saying "Well, people try to sell it like a service." , that person isn't really making a statement about clothes as a product. It's just acknowledgment of how clothes are treated in a specific arena. It still wouldn't make articles of clothing a service. 

 

To follow your suggestion that a disc is a medium through which a service is being delivered is actually an argument for clothing being a service right now, despite not being sold as such in any way. There is work embedded within the shirt I'm wearing. I can't return the experience of being clothed for the day that I wore it if I try to return it. To call it a service is a bit of a stretch though. 

 

Another point on that analogy, as well as ones I didn't address earlier on the restaurant and amusement park ones (I had to run to school):

Video games are even less offensive to ask for refunds on than these things, for the simple reason that there is not a tangible product being sold and depleted, at least in the case of digital sales (aka the Steam policy we're discussing). There is not a loss to be found on the vendor's end, such as having to restock a sweaty shirt, or having wasted resources (idk) at an amusement park. If I'm the only person who entered a movie theater and I leave early and get a refund, they've hired employees to come in, get the reel moving, and clean the bathroom. There are services being provided by the theater that are necessary to enable me to access a movie theater and its content. It still doesn't make the object on the reel a service in itself though. That's still a product. 

[Mal]

Games as a product has services attach to it. Pretty much like any other product that you buy in stores or directly from the dev/pub or manufacturer. The product can differ vastly (e.g*., how they are consumed, durability, how they exist), they more or less have similar flows on how they get to the consumers. While there is no perfect analogy to video games but I best relate to the food service industry, a very expansive industry that encompasses the food on store shelves to mom and pop restaurants. Both have services revolving around products. For the services, both have a front side and a back side. It isn't uncommon to see front and back side being one and the same, especially so if the establishments is independent.

 

While I'll hate to get a game that breaks 2 hours in (kind of like if I get food poisoning hours after my meal), at least I can return very sloppy products now on Steam (this cooked meal is raw or you swapped between salt and sugar). As always, be a smart consumer. You really shouldn't walk into a blatant cash grab of a game or food. Word gets out. You can look at the product prior to purchase.

 

I'm just not sure how the hell we can deal with games like Sim City. That game's problems were really deep and required many hours to get to and confirm.

 

* Really, there are too many things to list.

[Thursday Next]

Just want to be clear that there is (I hope obviously) a degree of devil's advocacy here. The industry sees games as being more servicey, consumers (by and large and outside of multiplayer) see them as goodsy.

 

Legal constructs at the moment put them in the more servicey end of things, but there is a steady shift towards the goodsy.

 

As a consumer, I tend to consume games in a goodsy fashion. However, I do see the argument from the industry side as well. I think it is right that games (and films and music and books) are treated differently to say spoons. People don't get excited when a new spoon comes out, use it for every meal for a few weeks, then stick it in a draw, start using a new spoon and forget about the old spoon, maybe going back to it now and then for nostalgic reasons. Similarly, the appeal of the spoon is not to experience eating with it once (after which you have seen most of what the spoon can do) after which you will only really go back to it if it is an exceptional spoon.

 

This doesn't mean I'm against refunds. Quite the opposite. I completely agree that publishers should stand by their products. It just means that I think that game refunds need different restrictions to other, more mundane goods. Both EA and Valve have tried to address this, EA with a 24hr from boot and Valve with a 2 hour playtime limit. Both have their merits and weaknesses. The major issue with them both is that they do not scale with the game, which is why makers of shorter games feel aggrieved, and I think, justifiably so. I would much rather see a % completion system adopted rather than "playtime" (who's to say that you didn't boot the game, then have to run down the shops or whatever.) and see refunds scale as well if for example you reach 50% you get an 80% refund etc.

[Mr. GOH!]

I actually think the time limits set by Valve is both fair and clear and I have very little sympathy for most developers of games that can be experienced completely within 2 hours. I sincerely believe that  a developer of a hypothetical excellent one-hour game will not lose out much to folks who game the Steam refund system; if the players truly like the game, and it is priced well, only a small minority of consumers will buy, play, and then request a refund upon completion. 

 

I do think Valve should allow devs to opt out of the refund program, just with a caveat that all in-Steam marketing of the game would include a large icon stating  that the dev/publisher opted out of refunds. Let them deal with the Scarlet Letter if they're afraid of the two-hour refund window. 

 

I think it's kind of ridiculous to base the refund upon completion percentage of a game, as a lot of the indie devs who are concerned about the refund program make games that are more like interactive toys and completion cannot really be measured meaningfully. 

 

I find EA's system to be the most generous, but that makes sense, since EA has released a number of disasters in recent years for which the extent of the mess takes more than 2 hours to emerge. EA has to rebuild trust in their brands and a generous return policy helps. Making excellent games that actually work would be even better, but we cannot expect miracles. 

[deanb]

On the opt-out thing isn't Valve bringing this in to be more inline with EU laws, in which case "opt out of certain laws" isn't quite a thing they can do (also end of the day Valve are the retailer, it's not up to the products on display if they can opt out of obligations the retailer is set to. It'd be like Apple opting out of statutory warranties or something silly like that ). I agree with the whole "little sympathy with the developer of a 2hr game. If it's good folks are unlikely to try and abuse the refunds, and Valve will be able to pick up on folks abusing stuff like that).

 

In other "breaking the law" news, given Steam is extremely data rich, folks have been able to pick up on a bunch of games going up in price just ahead of the sale. Which apart from being illegal in the UK, is also dodgy in plenty other nations too. It was done by a few devs last year too, which you'd have thought would have been a red-flag to Valve to maybe sort that wee loophole.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/39gi24/xpost_rsteam_some_companies_are_raising_prices_on/

&

http://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/39ckjx/some_companies_are_raising_prices_on_their_steam/

 

(english vs english, but american consumer law is poop)

 

edit: reading deeper into the thread it seems the FTC has similar requirements on sale pricing that the UK has. i.e the whole "don't raise immediately before a sale then drop and displaying the raised price, you have to display the previous price as what it was for a "substantial period" usually several weeks).

[Mr. GOH!]

If the law in the U.S. doesn't require a refund period (and I don't think it does), in the case of Steam games), Steam certainly can let publishers and devs opt out for the US store, and any other stores in jurisdictions that have no requirement for a refund period. But of course they cannot opt out of a legal obligation and I was not suggesting they could. I was unaware that the policy was driven, in part, by EU consumer protection laws.

[Baconrath]

Is this sale game thingy what it's like to physically mine for bitcoin

[deanb]

So ther's some funky stats if you're into that kind of thing:

http://steamspy.com/sale/

 

There's quite a lot of ways to chew through the data. e.g most played game in the UK being Football Manager, in the US it's CS:GO.

[deanb]

So article from guy who built the above

https://medium.com/@galyonkin/some-things-you-should-know-about-steam-5eaffcf33218

 

Surprised that USA only accounts for 18% of Steam users, seems lower than expected though I guess PC is traditionally less of a thing there compared to Europe.

 

Also UK users have more games which is weird. Like 4 times more than average. (which means I have 21 times the average :/)

 

Also seems Greenlight is really fecking up with sales too (as in units than 50% off)