Refund calendar limit

[VoxDei]

I just wanted to suggest that the requirement for a refund that you have owned the game less than two weeks be looked at. I can absolutely see the requirement that you have played it for less than two hours, but the problem with the two week thing is that I tend not to get to new games within two weeks. I buy them when they're on sale and because I have a backlog I don't get to them for a while. By the time I know if I have enough of a problem to warrant asking for a refund, the two weeks is well past.

Steam is normally quite good about giving me a refund anyway when this has occurred (I've only ever refunded four or five things, I think). This time, not so much though. I've just tried to refund a game that made me motion sick though - I've only played it for 1hr, but because I've owned it for a month I can't get my money back. And that's predicated on the assumption that I buy games and have the time to play them immediately. I don't, I've got a family, very often it takes me a while to get to them.

Any chance we could reconsider that two week limit please? Not that I expect things to change from this thread, but really... they could?

[Wolf Knight]

if you are not getting to your new games for over 2 weeks, that is a you problem. at some point, steam has to send the game developer their money for the game you purchased. many people on steam have a family, but play their new game after they buy it instead of waiting weeks before playing it. games go on sale all the time, if you are not going to play the game in a few days after purchasing it, hold of buying till it goes on sale again and you have the time to play it.

[Chompman]

The problem is the devs have the money sent to them and steam no longer has access to it after a set period of time thus it's needed to be a set date like that.

You need to test the game in a certain timeframe just like when you buy a physical item at a store and try returning it beyond the normal return date policy even if it was never opened.

If you never test them in this timeframe that's an issue you need to accept.

[Washell]

People have been asking for years. It's not going to change. Either find 10 minutes to playtest the game or stop adding to your backlog and only buy games when you're actually going to play them.

The latter is what I do.

[VoxDei]

For a physical item you typically get more than two weeks. It's all very well to say "that's a you problem", and to some extent you're right, but life doesn't always work that neatly. As I say, I have a family, I don't have a lot of game time and I can't always get to a new game within two weeks. I don't buy them expecting to want to refund them - if I expected that I wouldn't buy the things in the first place! Also large sale events are pretty much designed to get you to buy more games than you're going to play in two weeks - if I could buy at the sale price when I was ready to play it I'd do that, but I can't.

I accept there is a need to send the money to the devs, but that seems like a problem that is fairly straightforward to solve. Valve could (and quite possibly already do, I don't know) send the money to the devs when the sale is made, and if there is a later refund then withhold money from an equivalent later sale to cover the refund.

"That's a you problem." Sure, but I'm a customer. I'm far from unique in having a large backlog of games and little time in which to play them. Seems like I've got a problem that's easily solved and is probably common to a lot of customers, who are more likely to buy more games if they're confident they can refund them when they get to them if they don't like them or otherwise can't play them.

[nullable]

Well if they change it to sixteen days will that solve your problem? Or three weeks? What will solve your problem?

OK, whatever number you settle on, what about all the people who want refunds for even longer windows? What makes their needs unreasonable?

If you choose to impulse buy games that are on sale (like they're not on sale every other month), don't play them and aren't happy the refund policy doesn't enable that behavior, yeah asking to change the refund policy is one option. Managing your own expectations better is another.

The refund policy is a compromise to give the most people an acceptable amount of utility. It's not an insurance policy for every sort of slap happy buying strategy.

Originally posted by VoxDei:

For a physical item you typically get more than two weeks. It's all very well to say "that's a you problem", and to some extent you're right, but life doesn't always work that neatly. As I say, I have a family, I don't have a lot of game time and I can't always get to a new game within two weeks. I don't buy them expecting to want to refund them - if I expected that I wouldn't buy the things in the first place! Also large sale events are pretty much designed to get you to buy more games than you're going to play in two weeks - if I could buy at the sale price when I was ready to play it I'd do that, but I can't.

So, buy physical games.

Originally posted by VoxDei:

I accept there is a need to send the money to the devs, but that seems like a problem that is fairly straightforward to solve. Valve could (and quite possibly already do, I don't know) send the money to the devs when the sale is made, and if there is a later refund then withhold money from an equivalent later sale to cover the refund.

Sure they could... "Dear developers, we granted a refund for a game, so you owe us money now."

I mean the problem with self-centered ideas you thought up in ten seconds is they suffer from a lot of problems professionals have already addressed industry-wide governing game refunds.

And what do developers and publishers get out of favorable this arrangement?

Originally posted by VoxDei:

"That's a you problem." Sure, but I'm a customer. I'm far from unique in having a large backlog of games and little time in which to play them. Seems like I've got a problem that's easily solved and is probably common to a lot of customers, who are more likely to buy more games if they're confident they can refund them when they get to them if they don't like them or otherwise can't play them.

It seems like the problem you've got is self inflicted and it might not be Valve's or the industry's job to solve it. And you don't have the data to show that changing the refund policy the way you want would increase game sales. It's wishful thinking. And something a lot of people trot out to bolster their ideas.

Not to mention in your case, you're free to ignore the cost of refunds and more complex systems. The stores and publishers/developers don't have that luxury. I mean you don't like hearing "that's your problem", but you don't seem to have much trouble ignoring issues with your idea and basically say, "that's their problem."

[VoxDei]

Sixteen days, three weeks, six months... as you say, they're all arbitrary calendar limits. Why do we need one of those at all? Set it to something really long (like a year) or remove it entirely, just take the two hour playtime limit on its own. As I say, Valve can offset the refund against future sales, or in the unlikely event there aren't enough future sales to offset the refund they could simply take the hit. It's not going to come up to a lot of money that can't be offset against future sales even across all games, and Valve have deep pockets, they could afford to do that to keep their customers happy.

[Zekiran]

Yes, we do need it.

Because people will abuse it as they did in the past.

Valve cannot offset anything: they are a storefront and they MUST comply with the agreements they made with the publishers, to deliver payments from purchases PROMPTLY.

Also - if you buy a physical copy of a game, you can only ever return it for the same item provided it's broken, and only within usually 30 days AT MOST, for an unopened copy. Most stores won't accept electronics returns anyway, and it's never been more than 30 days in the entire history of software sales.

I've got games that I know are garbage and may not even run on my computers any more, that I've never played, and have owned for 10-12 years.

I will never under any circumstance attempt to steal money away from the publishers after even 2 weeks, let alone a month, or a year, or... any further time.

[Washell]

If Valve thought a more lenient policy would make them more money, you wouldn't be here asking, you'd be enjoying that policy. If there's one thing Valve has been consistently swift with on Steam, it's finding and implementing ways to increase profit and reduce costs.

Originally posted by VoxDei:

Sixteen days, three weeks, six months... as you say, they're all arbitrary calendar limits. Why do we need one of those at all? Set it to something really long (like a year) or remove it entirely, just take the two hour playtime limit on its own. As I say, Valve can offset the refund against future sales, or in the unlikely event there aren't enough future sales to offset the refund they could simply take the hit.

You're asking Valve to take the hit for your poor decisions. To turn your minor inconvenience into a financial liability for them (*). It's not going to happen. Don't buy games unless you have time to play(test) them. Another sale is always around the corner.

* Given the 100+ million users and the hundreds to thousands of developers, it wouldn't be a small liability either.

[Yasahi]

Originally posted by VoxDei:

Sixteen days, three weeks, six months... as you say, they're all arbitrary calendar limits. Why do we need one of those at all? Set it to something really long (like a year) or remove it entirely, just take the two hour playtime limit on its own. As I say, Valve can offset the refund against future sales, or in the unlikely event there aren't enough future sales to offset the refund they could simply take the hit. It's not going to come up to a lot of money that can't be offset against future sales even across all games, and Valve have deep pockets, they could afford to do that to keep their customers happy.

There might be no future sales to use for offsetting the refunds and taking a hit is not something any business with a userbase this large would do. Valve runs a business, not a charity. It's not in their interests to bleed out money just because some people can't stick to the current refund policy.

[nullable]

Originally posted by VoxDei:

Sixteen days, three weeks, six months... as you say, they're all arbitrary calendar limits. Why do we need one of those at all? Set it to something really long (like a year) or remove it entirely, just take the two hour playtime limit on its own. As I say, Valve can offset the refund against future sales, or in the unlikely event there aren't enough future sales to offset the refund they could simply take the hit. It's not going to come up to a lot of money that can't be offset against future sales even across all games, and Valve have deep pockets, they could afford to do that to keep their customers happy.

Ah yes, "Valve is rich, so any idea that won't put them out of business is good." Classic argument. I think that's how most great ideas get implemented in fact.

[Phoenix]

Originally posted by VoxDei:

Sixteen days, three weeks, six months... as you say, they're all arbitrary calendar limits. Why do we need one of those at all? Set it to something really long (like a year) or remove it entirely, just take the two hour playtime limit on its own.

The 14 days limit is due to legislation regarding online sales/ordering items online in general. In many countries the "default" (i.e. lowest possible limit) is set at 14 days after purchase/delivery of the item.

Why should Valve be interested at all to raise that limit and risk losing money?

[VoxDei]

I didn't say "that's their problem". I said I have a problem that is likely to be common to a lot of people, so perhaps it's in their interests to try to solve it even if it's not technically "their problem".

Separate example. Amazon's customer service is widely considered to be excellent, because they've realised that the cost to them of not quibbling about refunds and so forth is outweighed by the benefit to them of their customers being happy with their service. I've no idea if Amazon's suppliers like this arrangement or not, but it's one of the reasons Amazon makes so much money. Valve is in a similar position, in that they have a dominant platform that is used by a lot of third-party vendors. The vendors might not be happy if the platform makes refunds easier, but the platform still has the power to do it.

[VoxDei]

This is, apparently, not one I'm going to win.

I still don't think I'm wrong, incidentally. Valve could do this, I don't think the absolute cost would be high and if their customers liked it and bought more it might be a net gain for them (no, I don't have the data to back that up, of course I don't, how could I possibly? But some market research might give a hint). I don't think there's any kind of "right" to it, but I do think it might benefit both Valve and their customers, so why not?

However, I accept that both the majority of posters so far think I'm a moron and that since there's more of you than me I can't post fast enough to argue the points being made against me, so I think we're done here. That's fine, I didn't expect to change the world, I just made a suggestion (which, as I say, I haven't changed my mind on).

[Phoenix]

>I didn't say "that's their problem". I said I have a problem that is likely to be common to a lot of people, so perhaps it's in their interests to try to solve it even if it's not technically "their problem".

Why though? It is neither mandated, nor does it impact their sales as far as I can tell. According to your own arguments it would be neither in Valve's nor in the publisher's interest to arbitrarily raise that limit.

I'd also argue that a lot more are not, in fact, impacted by the existing limit.

[Washell]

Originally posted by VoxDei:

Separate example. Amazon

Amazon is a poor example. Because if we follow that through, it would come down to Valve making a knock-off CoD and Fortnite and selling them for cheaper. They're also not taking the hit on refunds, but forcing the sellers to take it whereas Valve eats the transaction fees themselves.

Originally posted by VoxDei:

Valve is in a similar position

They're not. Alternatives to Valve are already up and running. Scaling them up to deal with increased traffic is trivial. Competing with Amazon requires setting up an (inter)national set of warehousing, distribution fleet, thousands of workers, etc.

If Valve tried to pull the same things Amazon does with its sellers, the store would empty overnight.

Originally posted by VoxDei:

but I do think it might benefit both Valve and their customers, so why not?

Valve needs to take into account malicious actors in countries where they're effectively legally untouchable for a US company. It won't take much to wipe out any financial benefits.