New Steam Refunds, Arma 3 and it's expansion

[das attorney 858]

Hello,

Very recently, Steam decided to offer a full refund on new games purchased, for whatever reason, as long as you have only used them for 2 hours or less and have owned it for 14 days or less.

See here for full agreement:

http://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/

As a consumer, this seems like a good thing on the surface. You can get a refund on crappy/non-functional games subject to the t&cs, so more power to the consumer right?

Not necessarily according to this article:

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AndrewPellerano/20150604/245208/Steam_Refund__Friend_or_Foe.php

It seems the "refund" goes to your Steam Wallet, so in essence Steam gets their cut against a future purchase, and the dev gets 0% as you get your "refund" (store credit).

Why should you care?

If you read the Gamasutra article it explains that the fundamental structure of games could be affected by devs to make sure you don't request a refund within that 2 hour period.

Examples could include:

• Gamebreaking bugs hidden/obscured for "honeymoon period"
  
• Game structured to make you play initially for more than 2 hours
  

Also, I'm sure we all understand Steam is a business and they are protecting themselves, while making it look like they care about the consumer, so is it really better for developers to integrate so closely with Steam?

It seems as if this would apply to DLC's and the new expansion:

Refunds on Downloadable Content

(Steam store content usable within another game or software application, "DLC")

DLC purchased from the Steam store is refundable within fourteen days of purchase, and if the underlying title has been played for less than two hours since the DLC was purchased, so long as the DLC has not been consumed, modified or transferred. Please note that in some cases, Steam will be unable to give refunds for some third party DLC (for example, if the DLC irreversibly levels up a game character). These exceptions will be clearly marked as nonrefundable on the Store page prior to purchase.

So is Arma's future bright being this closely tied in with Steam (irreversible for A3 but maybe for future titles)? Will the gameplay/structure change of any campaign released as part of the expansion to circumvent the 2 hour rule? We all know Arma's dev cycle is ongoing so there are a fair amount of bugs on release (which generally get worked on throughout the life cycle of the game). Will that impact sales/refunds?

There's probably many other potential issues but I couldn't think of them right now.

I don't have a fully formed opinion one way or the other yet but thought it was worth mentioning here for other readers interest.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Das Attorney

[bonchie 39]

It's not perfect but some ability to get a refund is better then none.

[roshnak 41]

• Gamebreaking bugs hidden/obscured for "honeymoon period"
  
• Game structured to make you play initially for more than 2 hours
  

I don't think this is likely to work, since it seems like the 2 hour period is just for a guaranteed refund, and after that they'll take a look at requests for refunds anway.

Despite the fact that refunding to the Steam Wallet is obviously not great, I don't see how offering refunds of any kind can be worse than not offering refunds at all.

[das attorney 858]

I'm not debating that ANY kind of refund is better than none, more that it's implementation will affect how games (in particular future Arma releases) are made.

[nikiforos 450]

This will put pressure on Devs and they will try to make their products more appealing . So as a consumer I think this is a step forward but I'm sure devs might think otherwise.

There are tones of crappy games on steam for low prices mostly that will have huge problems maintaining their business with this change. For me 2 hours is enough to get a fairly good picture of a game.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Nikiforos

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Not necessarily according to this article:

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AndrewPellerano/20150604/245208/Steam_Refund__Friend_or_Foe.php

The article seems to be written from a standpoint of someone purposefully making it want to look bad. I can go on Gamasutra and write my own article titled "Arma 3 - A fun game or a recruitment and training tool for terrorists?".

It seems the "refund" goes to your Steam Wallet, so in essence Steam gets their cut against a future purchase, and the dev gets 0% as you get your "refund" (store credit).

That's not true. You're only forced to refund to your Steam Wallet when the payment method makes it impossible. You can absolutely get a refund to your card and most payment providers.

Why should you care?

If you read the Gamasutra article it explains that the fundamental structure of games could be affected by devs to make sure you don't request a refund within that 2 hour period.

Examples could include:

• Gamebreaking bugs hidden/obscured for "honeymoon period"
  
• Game structured to make you play initially for more than 2 hours
  

How is this worse than having no refunds at all where gamebreaking bugs can be there from moment one and you couldn't do anything about it because you bought it and Steam offered no refunds? It's not like someone is going to make a perfect game for first 2 hours. Also, it's not like the reviews, previews, youtube videos and whatnot are going to stop existing so you are incapable to judge for yourself before you buy or in the grace period you are given.

Also, I'm sure we all understand Steam is a business and they are protecting themselves, while making it look like they care about the consumer, so is it really better for developers to integrate so closely with Steam?

It seems as if this would apply to DLC's and the new expansion:

So is Arma's future bright being this closely tied in with Steam (irreversible for A3 but maybe for future titles)? Will the gameplay/structure change of any campaign released as part of the expansion to circumvent the 2 hour rule? We all know Arma's dev cycle is ongoing so there are a fair amount of bugs on release (which generally get worked on throughout the life cycle of the game). Will that impact sales/refunds?

Arma absolutely has nothing to worry about. Two hours was never enough time to even scratch the surface of the game. In my opinion, any developer that has a problem with giving you a 2 hour hands on demo, probably doesn't deserve your money anyway.

Steams business suffers monetarily from just adding refunds. If you're getting a refund, you're also getting back Steams cut of the sale. You don't get a 70% of the money back, you get 100%. Steams business gains positive reputation from this.

There's probably many other potential issues but I couldn't think of them right now.

I don't have a fully formed opinion one way or the other yet but thought it was worth mentioning here for other readers interest.

Here are two very simple questions to understand why this is good for you, the consumer and you the small time developer.

"Would I rather not have the option to refund at all?"

I absolutely don't see any universe where a customer of anything would say "No".

"Would I rather people felt more free to try my game for 2 hours and not refund if they like it or not buy it at all?"

This is simple if you think of the 2 hours as a 2 hour hands-on demo where the customer can form their own opinion, rather than letting the press fully form the opinion on your game. The refunds also take the value of MetaScore down a peg because the consumers are less likely to say "Oh, only a 8.2 game, I won't bother" and more "Oh, this seems something I'd like to see for myself before I commit to it"

Besides, a refund doesn't mean you lost that money forever. Even in Arma's example where people might have wanted to get a refund when they saw there was no campaign initially, might purchase the game later down the line, when there was one once they felt like they're actually getting their monies worth.

Considering people are willing to buy Early Access games which have 100% chance of being obviously broken and unfinished. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

I don't see refunds as anything but a giant step forward.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Sniperwolf572

[x3kj 1247]

Why should you care?

If you read the Gamasutra article it explains that the fundamental structure of games could be affected by devs to make sure you don't request a refund within that 2 hour period.

Examples could include:

Gamebreaking bugs hidden/obscured for "honeymoon period"

Game structured to make you play initially for more than 2 hours

Wait for reviews and other user experiences or gamplay footage, before you buy,if you don't thrust the devs, just like before... Simple as that, problem fixed. I don't really see how this relates to arma specifically...

Arma has a mission editor that is available right from the start, you can choose/access everything from the beginning? And also, what makes you think BI will resort to shady behaviour? What have they done to you that you think so lowly of them?

They have handled everything very openly so far, and their DLC methods and the trial options are pretty generous as far as i'm concerned.

Edited June 5, 2015 by X3KJ

[das attorney 858]

That's not true. You're only forced to refund to your Steam Wallet when the payment method makes it impossible. You can absolutely get a refund to your card and most payment providers.

I just re-read the Steam Agreement and you're right. I totally got that off the article - serves me right for trusting it!

You will be issued a full refund of your purchase within a week of approval. You will receive the refund in Steam Wallet funds or through the same payment method you used to make the purchase. If, for any reason, Steam is unable to issue a refund via your initial payment method, your Steam Wallet will be credited the full amount. (Some payment methods available through Steam in your country may not support refunding a purchase back to the original payment method. Click here for a full list.)

---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

And also, what makes you think BI will resort to shady behaviour? What have they done to you that you think so lowly of them?

Don't put words in my mouth Fennek/X3KJ. I didn't say BI would do that. I was referring to the article that mentions devs on ANY games might look at doing that, hence saying "If you read the Gamasutra article it explains that the fundamental structure of games could be affected by devs"

[x3kj 1247]

Don't put words in my mouth Fennek/X3KJ

Why do you write this then, if you are not concerned about Arma devs doing it?

Will the gameplay/structure change of any campaign released as part of the expansion to circumvent the 2 hour rule? We all know Arma's dev cycle is ongoing so there are a fair amount of bugs on release (which generally get worked on throughout the life cycle of the game).

If you are not concerned about Arma devs doing it, why didn't you post it in offtopic/games. It is a valid concern for general industry, no doubt. I don't really feel the connection to arma/ BIS however.

[das attorney 858]

Saying that BI could change the structure of a campaign to encourage people to play for more than 2 hours is not accusing them of shady behaviour.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Saying that BI could change the structure of a campaign to encourage people to play for more than 2 hours is not accusing them of shady behaviour.

While I get where you're coming from, I don't see how any of the campaigns they have released so far actually discourages you from playing more than 2 hours? They've always been something you have to put hours in.

It's not like the campaigns they make are "Dear Esther", "Lost Coast" or similar.

[x3kj 1247]

Saying that BI could change the structure of a campaign to encourage people to play for more than 2 hours is not the same as accusing them of shady behaviour.

Why would they change the structure of the campaign in the first place? If the campaign doesnt encourage for more then 2 hours it simply is crap. Didn't you feel encouraged to play for more then 2 hours in the past arma campaigns? If yes, why do you think this would somehow change now all of the sudden?

The campaigns where already designed to be interesting/entertaining and as a showcase for the arma series more or less.

Edited June 5, 2015 by X3KJ

[chortles 263]

I'm finding it hard to mind a game encouraging me to play for more than two hours (at a time)...

[das attorney 858]

I started this off to see what peoples views are re: the implementation of Steam refunds but this is going well away from where I thought it would go.

I feel I'm replying to posts defending views I haven't necessarily advocated so I'm uncomfortable doing that.

Thanks for replies all - asking mods to lock.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

I feel I'm replying to posts defending views I haven't necessarily advocated so I'm uncomfortable doing that.

I think you're misinterpreting, you clearly asked:

So is Arma's future bright being this closely tied in with Steam (irreversible for A3 but maybe for future titles)? Will the gameplay/structure change of any campaign released as part of the expansion to circumvent the 2 hour rule? We all know Arma's dev cycle is ongoing so there are a fair amount of bugs on release (which generally get worked on throughout the life cycle of the game). Will that impact sales/refunds?

and stated

I don't have a fully formed opinion one way or the other yet but thought it was worth mentioning here for other readers interest.

And here we are, asking you in return what leads you to ask those questions in the scope of Arma? The view you presented here is doubt, and we're asking why are you doubting. While we're also stating that we believe the answer to all of those questions is no, because you again stated that you haven't formed an opinion yet and those are our opinions that might help you form yours. There is no attack from which you need to defend, there is a request for your input, hence all the why's.

[das attorney 858]

Just for the sake of discussion really. I saw it tweeted by Marek Spanel and wondered what players or potential players thought as well.

And those questions were more like open questions really to get the ball rolling, but I feel now I perhaps shouldn't have posted them and let people think of their own.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Das Attorney

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Just for the sake of discussion really. I saw it tweeted by Suma and wondered what players or potential players thought as well.

Well, we're biting and trying to discuss. It's a two way street. :)

(If it's this, then you're confusing the brothers, Suma is Ondrej)

As I stated before, I disagree with the authors opinion.

The author of the article either hasn't even bothered to read the subject matter and defaulted to "Money goes to wallet" which paints the rest of the article poorly because it's based on that false fact or is purposefully trying to misdirect hate onto Steam, which I find more likely considering the style of writing as it's an easy thing to do lately.

The entire tone of the article that paints Steam as directly profiting from this goes, whooosh, out the window the moment you realize that the crux of his article is false.

Where Steam profits is positive reputation and the sense of safety by making the most important person, the consumer, feel safe. And that is the right attitude. If there ever was a move that a "big player" stepped on the side of the "little guys", this is it. And nobody will ever openly argue that consumer should be treated like shit.

And the argument that games will be designed as to pack all the action in the first two hours, I find it ridiculous. Games as is right now try to pack every moment with action and whatnot even without it being affected by the "2 hour window".

And again, if you have a problem with making the first two hours of your game attractive, then you always had a problem because all the people who bought it and got bored and never played it, certainly never gave anyone else the incentive to do so or generated positive word-of-mouth. It's like saying that in ye-olden-days when demos existed, they were hurting games.

You don't need nuclear explosions every 2 minutes and a touching character death in between to make a game attractive, like the author paints it.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Sniperwolf572

[x3kj 1247]

And those questions were more like open questions really to get the ball rolling, but I feel now I perhaps shouldn't have posted them and let people think of their own.

Well to your credit, you did get the ball rolling :P It's just that (i think) there is just not alot off ground for controversy or discussion potential in regards to Arma. Other games and other publishers? Propably. Luckily the ones that would be doing this kind of business dont do the games i'm interested in. So i dont really care.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Oh and I forgot to drive another point home.

Each and every refund still costs Valve money which is absolutely not transferred to the developer (outside the percentage they already take with or without it) or the consumer.

Sure, it's a system that helps Valve reduce costs on other fronts like support tickets, but you can't really give them shit for doing a good thing.

[R0adki11 3949]

Closing per authors request.