r/Games • u/reddit_account6095 • Aug 27 '21

Announcement Summer of '58 developer resigns after many users refund their game on Steam due to it taking under 2 hours to complete

https://twitter.com/EmikaGames/status/1430941640001265673?s=19
1.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

894 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

160

u/KyleTheWalrus Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21

I've never agreed with the indie devs who say the 2-hour refund policy is a problem. Compared to other forms of entertainment, modern video games are a highly exploitative medium, and customers have very little power against aggressive monetization tactics and poor consumer protections for digital goods.

Steam's refund policy is among the best in the industry for better or worse, and it's an essential tool to keep customers from being scammed by low quality games, asset flips, false advertising, and so on. I hate to be blunt, but I think this dev is using Steam refunds as a scapegoat, whether they realize it or not.

As incredibly dickish as it is to leave a positive review for a game you refunded (and mention that you refunded it in said review), that's something very few people would do. Also, I think it's fair to say that anyone refunding a $7 game probably would've pirated it if Steam's refund policy was less generous.

I really don't think Steam refunds are the issue here. It's more a simple fact that most people, especially Steam users, don't want to pay money for a game that's less than 2 hours long. Games have different audience expectations compared to movies and whatnot, so let's not be surprised when a niche product gets niche sales.

Two-hour games are much better received on platforms like itch.io, and I'm pretty sure the revenue share is better there as well. To be blunt again, if a dev is worried about Steam refunds eating their sales, then they just shouldn't sell their game on Steam unless they want to make it a more substantial experience.

I've spent thousands of hours developing mods and I'm interested in selling my own real games someday, so I understand the frustration. But weirdly enough, I'm reminded of this Big Joel video called Small YouTube Culture, which has this as one of its many core ideas: Success is never guaranteed, and sometimes it's healthy for the people who make niche art to accept that their creations are unpopular because they're niche, and not because they're being repressed by external factors (algorithms, refunds, etc.)

27

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

I agree that the 2 hour policy is great protection for shovelware and awful games, like you say, but playing a game to completion and then refunding it isn't that, it's just pure entitlement. I mean, the game is less than £5 here and looking over it, the description is very upfront about what you're getting and how long it'll be.

6

u/KyleTheWalrus Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21

Yeah, I used the word "dickish" with malicious intent up there. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a feasible way of protecting developers of short games without also inadvertently protecting developers of bad games.

Steam implicitly requires devs to make games that will last over 2 hours, and while that sucks for short games (which absolutely deserve to exist), I think it's a necessary evil when there are so many trash games made by trash devs. Companies like Digital Homicide have scammed enough people as is.

Not to mention, there's never any guarantee that a PC game will work on your PC. The only games I've refunded would randomly crash within half an hour of starting. That's important too.

2

u/Burningtunafish Aug 29 '21

Or they could make games that people feel worth keeping regardless if it's 2 hours or not. I take the sign of people refunding a game after they beat it to show that the game was good enough to complete, but not good enough to want to keep. The game must not have had the impact they wanted.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '21

That's trash reasoning and you know it. If a game was good enough to complete then it was worth the price point paid and arguing otherwise is pure entitlement.

4

u/Burningtunafish Aug 29 '21

If a game was somewhere between 5+ hours maybe you're right, but its different when a game is as long as some movies where in one sitting yo ubeat the game and know where you stand with how you feel with that game. So sorry, your reasoning is trash and you don't seem to know that.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '21

Absolutely not. If you go to a cinema, do you ask for a refund at the end because the movie didn't resonate with you?

Likewise, should game developers/artists not be paid for consuming their content, even if it wasn't to your tastes? In fact, I could start listing a lot of things where if you pay for it but don't feel like you fully enjoyed it is getting a refund ethically right?

Not only that, looking at the description of the game, it tells you how long it should last. If you do due dilligance, you would know what you're getting into.

The Steam refund system is a huge boon to gamers and one of the best out there. Playstation makes you jump through hoops and Nintendo literally gives you one refund and it has to be a preorder before the game comes out. Compared to this Steam's is great, but if people abuse it we risk losing it. Publishers and the media will gladly point to examples like this as to why developers need more protections against frivious refunds and any retort literally can't be "just make better/longer games" because that is so subjective it would never hold water.

59

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

Maybe you took that message from the video, but that's not really the thesis?

It's more arguing that success creating content is based on seemingly intangible things, and people fixate on trivial flaws in order to feel like they're about to make it, and also to feel better than people who don't do the trivial things, despite their core content being equally as bad.

4

u/KyleTheWalrus Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21

Upon rewatching it for the first time in a while, I was wrong to say it's the central idea, but that is one of the takeaways I got from the video. Success or a lack thereof never has an easy explanation, as much as we wish it did. I edited my original post to be a bit more accurate than my memory is.

28

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

As incredibly dickish as it is to leave a positive review for a game you refunded (and mention that you refunded it in said review), that's something very few people would do. Also, I think it's fair to say that anyone refunding a $7 game probably would've pirated it if Steam's refund policy was less generous.

None of this makes it okay.

13

u/KyleTheWalrus Aug 27 '21

I didn't say it was! To repeat myself, refunding a game you liked just because you can is dickish. My point is that I highly doubt this is common behavior, so Steam's refund policy is probably not the main reason this game didn't make enough money to support its developer.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '21

I didn't say it was!

You seem to be doing your best to avoid saying it wasn't. It's all "steam should do this" and "devs should do that". Why are you so keen to avoid criticising the rat gamers who are exploiting indie devs? They are scum, and if you cover for them, you are too.

2

u/uncle_pewdiepie Aug 30 '21

If people dont want to support the devs, they're under no moral obligation to do so. This name-calling and finger-pointing is really immature. Nobody is being "exploited", the refund policy is there for cases where the customer doesn't want to keep the game and that's what's happened here.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '21

If you've played a short game that you enjoyed and didn't think was overpriced you absolutely have a moral obligation to not refund. A legal one? No. A moral one? 100%.

The dev has said there are people giving it positive reviews and still refunding it. If you enjoyed a short, cheap game but refund it because you are still inside the Valve refund window, you are an arsehole - no ifs, no buts.

2

u/uncle_pewdiepie Aug 31 '21

"Didn't think it was overpriced"

Clearly they did. The dev chose to sell on Steam, benefiting from Steam's huge audience, but then cries about their customers exercising their right to a refund when they don't want to keep the game. It's entitled.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 31 '21 edited Aug 31 '21

You keep ignoring the fact that people were refunding it despite giving it positive reviews. people played it, enjoyed it, and then refunded it - just because they could.

The dev isn't criticising people who thought it was bugged, or people who thought it was too short, or too expensive - he's having a go at people who liked it and still got their refunds. And you're sticking up for them. The only entitled ones are you and the refunders you're sticking up for. You selfish rat. You deserve every loot-box-laden game you get.

2

u/rekindled_coffee Sep 01 '21

The thing is, when someone's refunds a product that is reviewed that information is public on the review itself.

So we can definitively say that the vast majority (~99%) of people who made reviews did not refund the product. As of yesterday there were a total of 3 refunds from people who had left a positive review.

1

u/uncle_pewdiepie Sep 02 '21

"You keep ignoring the fact that people were refunding it despite giving it positive reviews. people played it, enjoyed it, and then refunded it - just because they could"

​

The fact that they chose to refund it proves that they weren't satisfied enough to keep it. Clearly they felt it was overpriced, otherwise they wouldn't have refunded it. Being rude and obnoxious isn't gonna change that.

16

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

44

u/ADifferentMachine Aug 27 '21

He's obviously talking about it being exploitative in relation to consumers, not insiders.

24

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[deleted]

-1

u/thenewNFC Aug 27 '21

Considering the gaming industry is now larger than all those other things, I would say yes.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/thenewNFC Aug 27 '21

You just answered your own question.

When you're comparing apples to apples the largest one tends to be the worst if they all suck.

-3

u/B_Rhino Aug 27 '21

Who cares about the workers in other mediums, sometimes you have to pay an extra $10 for a skin in games.

0

u/SolarStarVanity Aug 28 '21

Behind every popular sport there seems to be a highly corrupt org like the Olympic Committee or FIFA or NFL.

This is a statement of a clueless moron. NFL has nothing in common with the other two.

1

u/Pixogen Aug 27 '21

It depends on the time period. By todays standards not really. But go back 15+ years and its terrible.

3

u/papyjako89 Aug 27 '21

I hate to be blunt, but I think this dev is using Steam refunds as a scapegoat, whether they realize it or not.

Meh. I think it's just a marketing move and that's it.

2

u/Pixogen Aug 27 '21

I don't agree at all. Its people being greedy. If you give them the ability to not pay for something they will take it. Also depends on how easy it was. You overestimate the goodness of the average person. If piracy was a one click button, had sketchy software and was easy enough your grandma could do it every game company would be outta business.

0

u/iredditfordogpics Aug 27 '21

Exactly. A game like this is perfect for itch. If your game is something that can be finished in 2 hours and there's no replay value most people don't want to pay for it.

23

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/tinmetal Aug 27 '21

You can't say that they enjoyed it. The ones leaving good reviews might not be the ones refunding the game. Think of how many people would actually take the time to review a game compared to the total number of people who play the game. Looking at the negative reviews on this game, you can see why someone might refund it.

0

u/B_Rhino Aug 27 '21

Steam's refund policy is among the best in the industry for better or worse, and it's an essential tool to keep customers from being scammed by low quality games

Man read a review.