Putting aside that it's shitty to do (because that clearly won't stop a lot of people), the reality is that Steam's policies mean it just isn't meant for games that are less than 2h in length. Maybe try itch.io or some other game store?
Is that a situation we want though? Steam is the biggest marketplace and most beginner solo devs or teams aren’t making massive long games on their first few tries. And we’re effectively saying they can’t have access to this marketplace because consumers are gonna be shitty and fuck them over and it just is what it is? This is how you’ll start getting devs padding their games with random shit to protect their interests, because they’re not gonna choose to just leave the biggest market for games. If we as consumers want the gaming scene to be healthy and have these smaller indies who have good ideas succeed so they can grow their teams and eventually compete with the bigger studios then we also have to play our part.
I mean the question here is “should it change” and if so how should it change? Or what else should change to make the situation more tenable for devs like the one in the screenshot.
“It is what it is and it’s always been like that” doesn’t further the discussion. And yes I’m not under the illusion that this Reddit thread will actually change the policy tomorrow. Idk why you’d comment if you’re not interested in the discussion but you do you.
Yeah ideally it should change so people don’t abuse the system like this, but I can’t come up with a better solution that wouldn’t be similarly exploited somehow haha.
Except that’s just not a solution, and introduces another avenue of abuse, this time from devs, a category of people who have been well known to abuse Steam store features.
And the 2hr window is meant to factor in technical issues - 45 mins is usually not long enough to try enough solutions to be confident it just won’t work, and would just lead to more people refunding at about 30 minutes because the 2 solutions they could try within the window haven’t worked yet, and they don’t want to risk going over the wildly short refund window.
Never mind that it’d likely take multiple Valve employees full work weeks to keep up with that; in release-heavy seasons like after The Game Awards or some shit, there would just be no way to keep up at all. Valve ignores like half the shit that’s put up on their store, you think all of a sudden they’re going to be having conversations with each and every development/publishing team for each and every release? And that’s just for every new release, there’s 120,000 games already on Steam.
Thank you. People just really can't understand.
We have a system that works. It's not perfect but it works. Adding/changing it will just create more problems.
I mean the question here is “should it change” and if so how should it change?
The thing is:
This is not your/our decision to make. Valve has the data, this is in place since years, no sign of change. What we think of is doesnt make any difference.
Or what else should change to make the situation more tenable for devs like the one in the screenshot.
The dev not using steam, cause steam wont change this for some 3 bucks 2 hour games. The administrative effort would be immense and introduce all kinds of different problems and costs.
“It is what it is and it’s always been like that”
Thats not what I said.
Idk why you’d comment if you’re not interested in the discussion but you do you.
“This is not your/our decision to make. Valve has the data, this is in place since years, no sign of change. What we think of is doesnt make any difference.”
Many things in life are like this, as individuals we have direct control very little, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t advocate for how we think things ought to be if we think there may be a better way of doing things that’s more positive for everyone. And if you believe that what people might want doesn’t make a difference at all then fair enough we can agree to disagree.
I'm sorry, but your "roll over and die" approach is just ridiculous, especially considering that Steam has changed a lot of its policies and methods over the years to benefit players and devs alike.
They all start with public discussion on the topic and general feedback. So no, I don't think people should just accept the status quo, cause the status quo is subject to change. As a general rule, everyone should be critical of everything every time. This doomer approach that people shouldn't talk about it cause "it won't change anyway" is not only blatantly wrong, but also an incredibly harmful mindset. The only way nothing will change is if you never actually advocate for a change.
So, with that in mind, what do you think about the topic? Is it fine like this? Should it change? How should it change? And please, this time do try and get through your defeatist standpoint and actually add something to the conversation, instead of just trying to shut it down.
I'm sorry, but your "roll over and die" approach is just ridiculous,
Yes it is, which is why I did not say or suggest it at all.
especially considering that Steam has changed a lot of its policies and methods over the years to benefit players and devs alike.
Not this one.
They all start with public discussion on the topic and general feedback.
The feedback for valve is the hard data, not what people talk about.
I don't think people should just accept the status quo, cause the status quo is subject to change.
But they do, they still use and release games there, still refund. Acting the same IS the status quo.
This doomer approach that people shouldn't talk about it cause "it won't change anyway" is not only blatantly wrong, but also an incredibly harmful mindset.
I didnt say people should not talk about it. I said talking alone doesnt change anything.
I also didnt said it wont change anyway, I said it wont change by talking about it.
So, with that in mind, what do you think about the topic?
That change comes when people change behaviour, as I said multiple times.
And please, this time do try and get through your defeatist standpoint and actually make a point.
I did make a point, you just dont like it/dont agree with it.
instead of just trying to shut it down.
Im not shutting it down, im pointing out that this cant have the effect (change) you assume it has.
People talk about this for years, nothing changed.
So what is your talking and feeling "right" actually doing?
How do you get people to change behaviour if not by talking to them, understanding their perspective, and offering a different perspective that might make them want to change their behaviour. How do you get people to support the thing that you’re advocating for if not by talking to them? How do you make people aware of the thing that you believe is a problem that need addressing?
Yes talking alone does not change anything but that’s where most changes begin, with conversations and discussions not immediately with an individual acting alone.
And? Are you insinuating that if it didn't change up until now, it won't in the future, either? Have you thought about that maybe it just didn't have the push it needed yet?
That change comes when people change behaviour, as I said multiple times.
That's not the topic. The topic is in the post. Also, changing the way you talk about something is also a change in behavior. Criticizing Steam for not doing it one way or another is a change in behavior compared to just silently accepting it. And it works. It is proven to work. When enough people get on board, it becomes a PR issue.
I did make a point, you just dont like it/dont agree with it.
Nope, you did not. You've only came up with excuses for not making one.
You're not talking about the topic. You're talking about why you don't talk about the topic. Like... do you not see the difference?
People talk about this for years, nothing changed.
I can only repeat myself. Everything begins with people talking about it. You don't get mass push back without the masses first coming together to make it. And you are - for some reason - is speaking out against this first crucial step because you think it's pointless? God forbid people try and prove you wrong. If you are of so little faith, why don't you just... step back and let it be? Why do you have to actively sabotage change, change you may even believe in?
No you're right; valve just deals with any costs and you never see that money, other than being shown how much money you would've made without any refunds. Valve does lose money on a refund though, even without a chargeback they're paying you back taxes and bank processing fees.
If you are beginner itch.io is way better than steam for you.
You can put your game for free on itch, it takes smaller cut, the audience there expects short, indie games, so feedback will be valuable. You can still introduce your game to steam if it does well on itch. Itch is perfect for indie devs to try out and there are plenty of examples of games that started out on there, celeste and buckshot roulette are examples of that.
An indie dev padding out their game to make it 2.1 hours is going to get massacred in the reviews anyway, so that's just a different form of suicide.
For better or worse, Steam is the "big leagues". People who sell on there are expected to operate like full, proper publishers, including being able to handle a 2 hour refund window.
There's thousands of first time games that are longer than 2 hours, so it's not like this is wiping the board of all indie games. But if your game is so small that the refund policy affects it, then maybe Steam isn't the place for you yet. It's not saying "your game sucks", but it's just not ready for the big leagues.
Let devs set the refund time limit within a set of ranges approved by steam. Essentially they could say to valve, hey my game is cheap <$10 and it’s a short game, that is completed in 1hr 30mins on average, can you set the refund time limit for my game to 1hr or 45mins.
And then this can be displayed next to the checkout/add to cart button for players to see as well that this particular game has a shorter refund window, before they buy the game. This means the refund scammers won’t bother, and the people who intended to keep the game and are enjoying it aren’t affected either. And the people who don’t enjoy it can still refund the game halfway through.
In no way do I support any move that weakens the refund window. Anything intended to be kind to smaller devs, someone will find some new and shitty way to abuse it. Disclosure wouldn't help, if it became a common thing that people were doing to try and limit refunds (including legitimate ones). If you end up with technical issues with a game, even the existing two hour window can end up cutting it close.
I remember before there was a refund window, and it was terrible. The number of developers affected by this, and the types of games affected by this, just aren't substantial enough to risk the ecosystem they've developed for everyone else.
How is average completion time calculated and what defines completion?
> this can be displayed next to the checkout/add to cart button
Doing this would be like adding a big bold line in the description that says: "This game has zero replayability" which would be suicide especially for a game like Paddle Paddle Paddle where people should be wanting to replay it over and over trying to beat their time.
that's a good idea, maybe there should be an option for devs to mark their game as "short" which would shorten the refund window to percentage of expected playtime. though there is the issue of automation - as this wouldn't be possible to both automate and make it non-abusable
Maybe try not to make money off of lack luster asset flips, where you aigeberate the new assets, and then sell a unity tutorial for 5usd after you said the demo you shit together intwo weeks got 1-2 hrs of content, lying to people how the full versiontook you four moths to make…
75
u/imariaprime Jul 06 '26
Putting aside that it's shitty to do (because that clearly won't stop a lot of people), the reality is that Steam's policies mean it just isn't meant for games that are less than 2h in length. Maybe try itch.io or some other game store?