Steam's refund policy should take into account one's purchase history

[Bruce]

I understand the reasoning behind Steam's resistance to chronic refunds. What I would like to encourage, however, is that the player's volume of game purchases be taken into account before he starts receiving warning messages.

I would say that in the past dozen years, I have spent more than $1,000 on Steam. Against that, my refunds are a small percentage.

Let's stop a moment and put this to bed: True, I should have done more homework on some of my purchases. Also true, the majority of my refunds were due to situations that could not be foretold with accuracy, such as system performance even though mine meets requirements, and game fulfillment of promises. For example, the small screen prints on store pages don't always accurately depict how legible a game's interface will be on a laptop screen.

So, I am not a chronic dabbler looking for unintended game demos. I just had a string of bad luck recently.

Back to my point, though. Yes, I violated some algorithm that dictated no more than X refunds in Y months. I submit that the equation is missing Z: how long and how frequent a customer, particularly as indicated by the total net amount of money spent on Steam games over time.

Perhaps something to consider before lowering the "too many refunds" boom on a good customer.

[davidb11]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย SlowMango:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

The fighting retreat. I suppose it's natural as even the guy who doesn't know what "any" means surely has figured it out by now.

Wait, there's a fight going on?

This is so goofy.

[Nx Machina]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Precisely. Don't abuse refunds and you can still use them freely. I didn't even realize EGS offered refunds though. Good to know.

I linked both policies as both have abuse clauses and i did so because you singled out Valve while ignoring other companies have that clause.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Valve simply shall have to understand it is not entitled to limiting honoring features it promised to provide by intimidating honest users.

[William Shakesman]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Nx Machina:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Precisely. Don't abuse refunds and you can still use them freely. I didn't even realize EGS offered refunds though. Good to know.

I linked both policies as both have abuse clauses and i did so because you singled oit Valve while ignorinh other companies havr that clause.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Valve simply shall have to understand it is not entitled to limiting honoring features it promised to provide by intimidating honest users.

But that's not relevant to what I said. Intimidating honest users is using an automated message to suggest routine, non-abusive behavior is abusive. They absolutely should curb abusive behavior. To attempt to curb non-abusive behavior is wrong.

[Nx Machina]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

But that's not relevant to what I said. Intimidating honest users is using an automated message to suggest routine, non-abusive behavior is abusive. They absolutely should curb abusive behavior. To attempt to curb non-abusive behavior is wrong.

But that is not what you said nor what i replied to. (quoted below)

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Valve simply shall have to understand it is not entitled to limiting honoring features it promised to provide by intimidating honest users.

Adding context in a second post does not alter the intent of the original post, in fact it is shifting the goalposts.


As for your point about not being relevant:

It is relevant because you ignored companies have an abuse clause because the law protects both consumers and companies, hence they can warn and remove refunds, and this negates your claim that Valve are not entitled to, and in turn is negated by the simple fact that Epic can also remove your right to refund as i pointed out.

"Consumer Law only protects YOU if YOU within those rights to refund".

Secondly it is relevant because you chose to post "intimidating honest users" while ignoring the creator of the thread admits he was at fault for not doing research etc and why they received a warning. Honest users on the other hand would not get a warning and why in context "intimidating" has zero relevance.

[Tito Shivan]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

If this is about the "You have requested a significant number of refunds" message, just ignore it.

Ignore it, keep going and you'll have the ability to request refunds removed.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Not mine nor OPs because neither of us abused.

If you received a warning from Valve it means they think you do and are giving you a first strike.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Intimidating honest users is using an automated message to suggest routine, non-abusive behavior is abusive.

If they sent you the message it means they disagree on the 'non abusive' part.

[Crazy Tiger]

It's cute people think they're entitled to a courtesy refund policy. Outside refunds required by law (which the vast majority of refund requests on Steam don't fall under), companies don't have to offer them at all. And yes, they can revoke access to courtesy refunds without issue.

[Boblin the Goblin]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Everyone is Invited:

its cute that steam tells users they can refund if the games been played less then 2 weeks or 2 hours, then tell customers they can't refund because they refunded to much, even when the 2 weeks an 2 hours allowed for a refund to take place.

that is considered illegal to deny a refund within the expressed and set time frame simply because the company doesn't want to honor its agreed upon arrangement.

the word is misrepresentation and it is illegal to knowingly misrepresent a refund policy and deny a user simply because they use the feature they where assured would protect them from purchasing bad games.

Isn't illegal at all.

[Tito Shivan]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Everyone is Invited:

that is considered illegal to deny a refund within the expressed and set time frame simply because the company doesn't want to honor its agreed upon arrangement.

Consider Steam's refund policy is a courtesy and the limits are arbitrary.
May want to read this: https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/369C-3E9F-76FD-DEDA

[Brian9824]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Everyone is Invited:

its cute that steam tells users they can refund if the games been played less then 2 weeks or 2 hours, then tell customers they can't refund because they refunded to much, even when the 2 weeks an 2 hours allowed for a refund to take place.

that is considered illegal to deny a refund within the expressed and set time frame simply because the company doesn't want to honor its agreed upon arrangement.

the word is misrepresentation and it is illegal to knowingly misrepresent a refund policy and deny a user simply because they use the feature they where assured would protect them from purchasing bad games.

That isn't remotely illegal, you'd be hard pressed to find a store that won't ban users from refunds with excessive refunds

Heck some sites like amazon will actually close your account entirely if you refund to much...

[Nx Machina]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Everyone is Invited:

its cute that steam tells users they can refund if the games been played less then 2 weeks or 2 hours, then tell customers they can't refund because they refunded to much, even when the 2 weeks an 2 hours allowed for a refund to take place.

that is considered illegal to deny a refund within the expressed and set time frame simply because the company doesn't want to honor its agreed upon arrangement.

the word is misrepresentation and it is illegal to knowingly misrepresent a refund policy and deny a user simply because they use the feature they where assured would protect them from purchasing bad games.

It isn't illegal to refuse a refund as you as the consumer agree to the refund policy and have to be within the timeframe set.

Secondly a company can refuse refunds based on a consumer excessively requesting refunds and trying to get free games, goods.

And finally a "free only user" is not affected by the refund policy as by law a refund requires the exchange of money.


As a sidenote: EU/UK Right of Withdrawal and Steam Refunds

The EU/UK statutory right of withdrawal ends 14 days after your purchase or the moment you start downloading the content and services for the first time (whichever is sooner).

At the same time, Steam voluntarily offers refunds to all of its customers worldwide in a way that is much more customer-friendly than our legal obligations. In particular, and for digital games we allow you to try them for up to two hours, whereas your statutory right of withdrawal does not give you a chance to try out games at all. You can find the details of our voluntary refund policy here:

And one other:

Refund policies - Take your pick.

1) Steam - Within two weeks of purchase and with less than two hours of playtime

2) Epic - Games and products are eligible for refund within 14 days of purchase. However, you must have less than 2 hours of runtime on record.

3) EA Play - Whichever comes first.

a) Within 24 hours after you first launch the game.

b) Within 14 days from the day you bought it, if you have not launched the game.

c) Within 14 days from the release date if you pre-ordered the game, if you haven't launched it yet.

4) Ubisoft - You can request a refund for a digital order within 14 days of your purchase, as long as the content has not been launched.

5) Blizzard - The game is newly purchased within the last 3 days. You haven't started the game; if the game has been played at all it won't qualify for a refund.

6) GOG - starting now, you can get a full refund up to 30 days after purchasing a product, even if you downloaded, launched, and played it. That's it. (Open to abuse, they monitor for abuse as do all PC stores).

GOG - https://ibb.co/ZzXPMwv

[William Shakesman]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tito Shivan:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

If this is about the "You have requested a significant number of refunds" message, just ignore it.

Ignore it, keep going and you'll have the ability to request refunds removed.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Not mine nor OPs because neither of us abused.

If you received a warning from Valve it means they think you do and are giving you a first strike.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Intimidating honest users is using an automated message to suggest routine, non-abusive behavior is abusive.

If they sent you the message it means they disagree on the 'non abusive' part.

Not really. The message is automated and not sent considering any circumstances other than quantity. It is not a sign of anything because it is completely automated. And, as I have said, I have received the message many times across many refunds.

People need to understand that automatic messages are just automatic messages and not warnings of anything. If you bought one game and refunded six, you would get that message. If you bought 70 games and refunded six you would still get that message. If you refund six games all selecting "it is at a lower sale price" which Valve explicitly says is not abusive, you will get that message. This is just Steam employee roleplaying.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tito Shivan:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Everyone is Invited:

that is considered illegal to deny a refund within the expressed and set time frame simply because the company doesn't want to honor its agreed upon arrangement.

Consider Steam's refund policy is a courtesy and the limits are arbitrary.
May want to read this: https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/369C-3E9F-76FD-DEDA

A policy isn't a courtesy. It is a policy. A courtesy is something generously given that isn't directed by policy. To suggest an entire official policy is a courtesy completely misunderstand the customer corporation relationship

[Boblin the Goblin]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tito Shivan:

Ignore it, keep going and you'll have the ability to request refunds removed.


If you received a warning from Valve it means they think you do and are giving you a first strike.


If they sent you the message it means they disagree on the 'non abusive' part.

Not really. The message is automated and not sent considering any circumstances other than quantity. It is not a sign of anything because it is completely automated. And, as I have said, I have received the message many times across many refunds.

People need to understand that automatic messages are just automatic messages and not warnings of anything. If you bought one game and refunded six, you would get that message. If you bought 70 games and refunded six you would still get that message. If you refund six games all selecting "it is at a lower sale price" which Valve explicitly says is not abusive, you will get that message. This is just Steam employee roleplaying.

At least you admit it.

[William Shakesman]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Nx Machina:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

But that's not relevant to what I said. Intimidating honest users is using an automated message to suggest routine, non-abusive behavior is abusive. They absolutely should curb abusive behavior. To attempt to curb non-abusive behavior is wrong.

But that is not what you said nor what i replied to. (quoted below)

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Valve simply shall have to understand it is not entitled to limiting honoring features it promised to provide by intimidating honest users.

Adding context in a second post does not alter the intent of the original post, in fact it is shifting the goalposts.


As for your point about not being relevant:

It is relevant because you ignored companies have an abuse clause because the law protects both consumers and companies, hence they can warn and remove refunds, and this negates your claim that Valve are not entitled to, and in turn is negated by the simple fact that Epic can also remove your right to refund as i pointed out.

"Consumer Law only protects YOU if YOU within those rights to refund".

Secondly it is relevant because you chose to post "intimidating honest users" while ignoring the creator of the thread admits he was at fault for not doing research etc and why they received a warning. Honest users on the other hand would not get a warning and why in context "intimidating" has zero relevance.

Honest users would get the warning as I am honest and have gotten it because it is a mindless automated message.

[Nx Machina]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Honest users would get the warning as I am honest and have gotten it because it is a mindless automated message.

20x in a row, "your wording" would disagree with that statement, as 20x literally means one after another.

[William Shakesman]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Nx Machina:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย William Shakesman:

Honest users would get the warning as I am honest and have gotten it because it is a mindless automated message.

20x in a row, "your wording" would disagree with that statement, as 20x literally means one after another.

Fortunately, Valve doesn't agree with you, as your reading comprehension needs work. 20 refunds, I said nothing about the time frame and what I did in between.

I must say I am quite tired of people attempting to rewrite the things I say to fit their own fanfic interpretations so they can tell me what I "meant". Feels like that is the OTHER purpose of this forum these days