refund warning

[broter😏]

"It looks like you’ve requested a significant number of refunds recently. If you often have problems with your purchases, please submit another ticket so that we can help you solve these issues.
Please note, that the Steam Refund Policy is not intended as a way to try out games for free. If we have reason to believe that the refund system is used in this manner, we may decline future refund requests."
mf why the hell would i spend money on your platform if you are going to take away my right to not enjoying a product and refunding

[BJWyler]

Opprinnelig skrevet av RasaNova:

People are making the assumption that the OP is using refunds to try out games. We don't know that, we only know that some unknown limit was exceeded, and he has been put on notice.

Except that the OP pretty much told us that's what he is doing:

Opprinnelig skrevet av broter😏:

why the hell would i spend money on your platform if you are going to take away my right to not enjoying a product and refunding

I agree that the way the policy is stayed can be misleading, and they should absolutely remove the bits that refer to games being not to their liking (which is different than a game not being what someone expected), but from the looks of things, it takes quite a bit to start hitting the abuse threshold, so the fact that OP did indeed hit it means he was taking advantage of the system.

[D. Flame]

Opprinnelig skrevet av C²C^Guyver |NZB|:

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Why is this a surprise to you? Since Steam became a monopoly, it has consistently become less and less consumer friendly. This isn't anything new, OP.

What does a monopoly have to do with abusing the refund system?

If they didn't have a monopoly, then would have to worry more about not being consumer unfriendly, since it could drive customers into the hands of Steam's competitors. When they become a monopoly, they don't have to worry about that, so they can make more and more sketchy moves.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Opprinnelig skrevet av C²C^Guyver |NZB|:

What does a monopoly have to do with abusing the refund system?

If they didn't have a monopoly, then would have to worry more about not being consumer unfriendly, since it could drive customers into the hands of Steam's competitors. When they become a monopoly, they don't have to worry about that, so they can make more and more sketchy moves.

lol...not wanting people to abuse their refund system is unfriendly? You have it backwards. OP is being sketchy here, not Valve. Go try what he's doing at a brick and mortar store and see what happens.

[D. Flame]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Stabby_Widdershins:

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Why is this a surprise to you? Since Steam became a monopoly, it has consistently become less and less consumer friendly. This isn't anything new, OP.

TBF, with as much as I hate Valve moderation, I have to say this:
OP is not a consumer/customer if they keep taking their money back.
They're costing the company money, and the company will take steps to mitigate or minimize those losses. Like, say, by taking away a serial refunder's ability to refund.

If I have a business, and one person keeps buying a game, playing it, and then refunding their purchase; I'd probably kick his non-paying butt out of my store permanently.
Because I'm not making money whenever they buy a game, and even losing money due to transaction charges.

Nah, every white knight on here tries to say you can use refunds in lieu of demos. If someone does that then gets punished for it, it is a problem. And do you know he isn't keep any games at all?

I have refunded several bad games while also keeping games that were fun too. Refunding some games doesn't mean you aren't also keeping some. You could also solve this issue by enforcing demos for every game, even if those demos were just 2 hours of the full game.

[D. Flame]

Opprinnelig skrevet av C²C^Guyver |NZB|:

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

If they didn't have a monopoly, then would have to worry more about not being consumer unfriendly, since it could drive customers into the hands of Steam's competitors. When they become a monopoly, they don't have to worry about that, so they can make more and more sketchy moves.

lol...not wanting people to abuse their refund system is unfriendly?

Yes. Unless the OP is trying to buy and refund the same game repeatedly, which I doubt.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Nah, every white knight on here tries to say you can use refunds in lieu of demos.

You'd be wrong, because that not what Valve says.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Opprinnelig skrevet av C²C^Guyver |NZB|:

lol...not wanting people to abuse their refund system is unfriendly?

Yes. Unless the OP is trying to buy and refund the same game repeatedly, which I doubt.

You don't get to use refunds as a way to demo games. That's what demos are for.

[breadman]

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Why is this a surprise to you? Since Steam became a monopoly, it has consistently become less and less consumer friendly. This isn't anything new, OP.

i don't think you know what monopoly is

[D. Flame]

Opprinnelig skrevet av breadman:

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Why is this a surprise to you? Since Steam became a monopoly, it has consistently become less and less consumer friendly. This isn't anything new, OP.

i don't think you know what monopoly is

Want me to link the definition, because Steam is legally a monopoly.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Opprinnelig skrevet av breadman:

i don't think you know what monopoly is

Want me to link the definition, because Steam is legally a monopoly.

Which still has nothing to do with the OP abusing refunds.

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Opprinnelig skrevet av C²C^Guyver |NZB|:

What does a monopoly have to do with abusing the refund system?

If they didn't have a monopoly, then would have to worry more about not being consumer unfriendly, since it could drive customers into the hands of Steam's competitors. When they become a monopoly, they don't have to worry about that, so they can make more and more sketchy moves.

Read your response there. OP is being sketchy, not Valve. It's not "consumer unfriendly" to not allow consumers to abuse your terms.

EDIT

con·sum·er

a person who purchases goods and services for personal use.
"understanding what motivates consumers is more crucial than ever"

OP is not consuming, he's refunding.

[D. Flame]

Opprinnelig skrevet av C²C^Guyver |NZB|:

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Want me to link the definition, because Steam is legally a monopoly.

Which still has nothing to do with the OP abusing refunds.

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

If they didn't have a monopoly, then would have to worry more about not being consumer unfriendly, since it could drive customers into the hands of Steam's competitors. When they become a monopoly, they don't have to worry about that, so they can make more and more sketchy moves.

Read your response there. OP is being sketchy, not Valve. It's not "consumer unfriendly" to not allow consumers to abuse your terms.

EDIT

con·sum·er

a person who purchases goods and services for personal use.
"understanding what motivates consumers is more crucial than ever"

OP is not consuming, he's refunding.

false

[breadman]

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Want me to link the definition, because Steam is legally a monopoly.

it is not

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Opprinnelig skrevet av C²C^Guyver |NZB|:

Which still has nothing to do with the OP abusing refunds.


Read your response there. OP is being sketchy, not Valve. It's not "consumer unfriendly" to not allow consumers to abuse your terms.

EDIT

con·sum·er

a person who purchases goods and services for personal use.
"understanding what motivates consumers is more crucial than ever"

OP is not consuming, he's refunding.

false

No. It isn't and typing a one word response doesn't validate your argument.

[D. Flame]

Opprinnelig skrevet av breadman:

Opprinnelig skrevet av D. Flame:

Want me to link the definition, because Steam is legally a monopoly.

it is not

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/monopoly

A type of commercial advantage enjoyed by one business entity that lets it determine to a significant extent the terms on which products or services may be obtained in a given region. For example, a monopoly would exist if a single supplier of gasoline in a state could significantly hike prices without serious competition.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Ubisoft, Epic, GoG, EA, BattleNet would like to have a word with you.......