Steam Refund deters buggy game releases

[ktchong]

Yes, now gamers can strike back if a game is released in broken state.  Apparently Batman: Arkham Knight has become the first casualty of the new Steam Refund policy - the game has apparently set a new record (the first one) for getting refunded on Steam.   Let it serve as a lesson for all publishers and developers for their future releases.

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2015 by ktchong

[Serrano]

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Serrano

[ktchong]

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

 

Then they should not be in the business.

[Bokishi]

Game runs great for me, however this really pisses me off

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-batman-arkham-knight-pc-lacks-console-visual-features

[archangel979]

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

They will fail and future products will have devs that will take these failures into account when planning their game features and finances.

 

And Early Access is still an option for devs that cannot released a polished released title.

[Lexx]

Heh, coming to think of that... if they had released the Batman game in early access, a truckton of people would defend their asses now.

[Mamoulian War]

Well eventually this will happen sooner than later. All AAA ports will be released as Early Access, so the customers cannot get refunds.

[Tale]

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

It's a question, but I don't know if it's a truly more important one.

 

No game should survive off the back of dissatisfied customers, regardless of how crucial that practice might have been to the creators.

 

If someone's truly in that situation, well, it's time to start being up front with people. Lots of communication. It won't solve the problem, but people who go in knowing that they're getting something unpolished and have a promise of support will probably be more willing to stick with it than people who feel deceived and only hear about it from the developers after the voices get raised.

[ktchong]

Well eventually this will happen sooner than later. All AAA ports will be released as Early Access, so the customers cannot get refunds.

What's percentage of sales are actually "Early Access"?

 

Personally, I have never paid for and played - and will never pay for and play - an early access of anything.  I take a principle stand against the "Early Access" ripoff.   Companies used to pay people to test their software and betas.  Now the companies come up with an euphemism for their works-in-progress, "Early Access", and make idiots pay for unfinished products and provide free labors to test the betas.

Edited June 25, 2015 by ktchong

[Serrano]

 

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

 

Then they should not be in the business.

 

 

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

 

Then they should not be in the business.

 

Like Obsidian? Troika? Iron Lore? CD Projekt Red?

[teknoman2]

well pillars didnt have any serious issues at launch. a bug here and there but nothing major 

and while witcher 1 and 2 had their share of problems at launch, neither of them was in such a sorry state that 97% of the buyers would ask for a refund less than 2 hours after purchase

hell, even brokenfield 4 was enjoyable enough at its disastrous launch for people to keep playing it while waiting for a patch

[FlintlockJazz]

well pillars didnt have any serious issues at launch. a bug here and there but nothing major 

and while witcher 1 and 2 had their share of problems at launch, neither of them was in such a sorry state that 97% of the buyers would ask for a refund less than 2 hours after purchase

hell, even brokenfield 4 was enjoyable enough at its disastrous launch for people to keep playing it while waiting for a patch

Add to that both Witcher 2 and 3 were released on GOG, which already offered refunds anyway, then they would already have been impacted by this to some degree.

[Nordicus]

 

 

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

 

Then they should not be in the business.

 

Like Obsidian? Troika? Iron Lore? CD Projekt Red?

 

Those are the most random examples you could have picked, with maybe the exception of CDProjektRED

 

If Bethesda, Lucas Arts, Activision, or THQ take a hit, then boo-f**king-hoo.

[Malcador]

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

Not much of a problem, some customers will knee-jerk refund for sure, but barring the game being a total mess (in which case it's not a flawed gem) most people will find something worthwhile to slug it out. Assuming the vendor actually takes steps to fix things so to not waste the goodwill of those customers.

 

Give customers some credit in that they will appreciate the situation on a developer by developer basis, that and if you release crap, don't cry about what follows.

[teknoman2]

 

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

Not much of a problem, some customers will knee-jerk refund for sure, but barring the game being a total mess (in which case it's not a flawed gem) most people will find something worthwhile to slug it out. Assuming the vendor actually takes steps to fix things so to not waste the goodwill of those customers.

 

Give customers some credit in that they will appreciate the situation on a developer by developer basis, that and if you release crap, don't cry about what follows.

 

indeed.

it is one thing for a game to have some or even many problems at launch but be still enjoyable to play, and another to be so badly made that the buyers feel insulted and scammed. an example of the former would be alpha protocol... the new batman was the later

still, this situation is a long overdue wake up call for developers and publishers that we wont take anymore crap. the fiasco with the order 1886 was the first slap towards the industry, this will probably drive the point through their thick sculls

Edited June 26, 2015 by teknoman2

[cirdanx]

Returning bought thing is a customers right. Especially if the product doesn't meet any standards or is straightforward broken.

 

This. If you are against this, you are an idiot. There is no other option or argument against this.

[archangel979]

 

 

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

Not much of a problem, some customers will knee-jerk refund for sure, but barring the game being a total mess (in which case it's not a flawed gem) most people will find something worthwhile to slug it out. Assuming the vendor actually takes steps to fix things so to not waste the goodwill of those customers.

 

Give customers some credit in that they will appreciate the situation on a developer by developer basis, that and if you release crap, don't cry about what follows.

 

indeed.

it is one thing for a game to have some or even many problems at launch but be still enjoyable to play, and another to be so badly made that the buyers feel insulted and scammed. an example of the former would be alpha protocol... the new batman was the later

still, this situation is a long overdue wake up call for developers and publishers that we wont take anymore crap. the fiasco with the order 1886 was the first slap towards the industry, this will probably drive the point through their thick sculls

 

I think you have short memory. Diablo 3, Sim City and some others predate Order 1886

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

Not much of a problem, some customers will knee-jerk refund for sure, but barring the game being a total mess (in which case it's not a flawed gem) most people will find something worthwhile to slug it out. Assuming the vendor actually takes steps to fix things so to not waste the goodwill of those customers.

 

Give customers some credit in that they will appreciate the situation on a developer by developer basis, that and if you release crap, don't cry about what follows.

 

indeed.

it is one thing for a game to have some or even many problems at launch but be still enjoyable to play, and another to be so badly made that the buyers feel insulted and scammed. an example of the former would be alpha protocol... the new batman was the later

still, this situation is a long overdue wake up call for developers and publishers that we wont take anymore crap. the fiasco with the order 1886 was the first slap towards the industry, this will probably drive the point through their thick sculls

 

I think you have short memory. Diablo 3, Sim City and some others predate Order 1886

 

Diablo 3 had a really crappy launch and got a lot of hate for it, but there was no financial backlash for blizzard since it sold like crazy.

im not sure about what happened with sim city other than it was a bad game

the order 1886 created a big hole in Sony's wallet though, since it was so bad that nobody wanted it and it proved that the players are not as gulible as the publishers think them to be

Arkham knight however caused (so far) the biggest backlash, because selling poorly is not as bad as getting massive refund requests from angry clients

[Bryy]

 

A more important question is probably how many flawed gems will be abandoned after release because too many people have returned them and how will this effect smaller publishers and indie devs who may not have the luxury of being able to afford a delay and can't take the financial hit of a failed title.

 

Then they should not be in the business.

 

This is hilarious in the context of your example being a AAA title.

[ktchong]

 

Diablo 3 had a really crappy launch and got a lot of hate for it, but there was no financial backlash for blizzard since it sold like crazy.

im not sure about what happened with sim city other than it was a bad game

the order 1886 created a big hole in Sony's wallet though, since it was so bad that nobody wanted it and it proved that the players are not as gulible as the publishers think them to be

Arkham knight however caused (so far) the biggest backlash, because selling poorly is not as bad as getting massive refund requests from angry clients

 

 

In the cases of Diablo 3 and Sim City, the customers did not have any recourse after they had purchased the games, i.e., they could not refund the games; it was a "already got your money - gotcha!" situation.  Video games have always been non-refundable.  Which has emboldened game publishers and developers to release broken, bug-ridden products - because they knew customers did not have a recourse once they had gotten the customers' money.

 

Steam Refund is a whole new ball game.  Now, if a game is broken and full of bugs and glitches, customers will be able to take action and retaliate.  Getting a refund is easy and just a few mouse click away.  Steam Refund transfers the power from publishers/developers to consumers.  It will discourage publishers/developers from putting out a product before it is ready, from released a bug-ridden product.  GamersGate and Green Man Gaming are already following Steam's lead and starts to offer refunds for some games.  Gamers will soon start to demand the same from GOG and other digital outlets. Publishers and developers will soon learn and realize that, if they put out a broken game, they will be penalized financially.

 

Allegedly Warner Bros had known for months that Batman: Arkham Knight was a mess and should not have been released, but the publisher went ahead and released the game anyway.  Unfortunately for WB, they made a calculative mistake - they forgot to factor in the newly introduced Steam Refund. It is not the first time WB had released a broken product, but in the past they had never had to deal with refunds from  unsatisfied and ticked-off customers.  People have been conducting informal polll and found out that over 80 percent of Steam sales have been refunded.  That must have been a financial hit for WB.   That kind of mass refund could have bankrupted a smaller publisher or developer.  Which is why WB was forced to suspend the sales of Arkham Knight. 

 

Now WB has learned their lesson.  I think a few more publishers/developers will have to learn the same lesson before the industry will catch on and realize, "oh crap, the market has changed. Now we have to consider that customers will be able to refund."  I just hope Obsidian  will not have to learn this lesson the hard way.

 

Edited July 3, 2015 by ktchong

[Gizmo]

Returning bought thing is a customers right.

Do you know how many bastards buy chainsaws, lawn mowers, and shop-vacs ~use them, then bring them back for a refund?

(Some of them don't even empty the bags in the vacs and mowers.) It should be a right that retailers can depend on their apparent income from sales, and not have the hassle of petulant customers demanding their money back after using the product. I've even heard tell of disassembling duplicate items, and reassembling one with all of the most worn parts, to take back for a refund. It's sick.

 

A refund system in place is a good thing to have, but it should only be used if there is a problem ~not on the whim of teenagers that buy a game and play it until bored, and demand a refund. Steam does at least refuse if the game was played for more than two hours, but some games are only two hours long; others four hours; that's half the game.  Then there are the software utilities... You buy those because you need them; and your need might be one time only, and take 15 minutes... Does that mean that the customer has the right to use the tool for their purposes, and then demand a refund?

Edited July 3, 2015 by Gizmo

[mute688]

If someone wanted to play a game without paying for it, they would visit Pirate Bay, not Steam.  It is vastly easier to pirate a game than to purchase it on Steam, only play less than two hours of it and then request a refund.  I personally think that Steam refunds now actually make pre-orders a reasonable practice.  Pre-orders give a publisher an indication of a games popularity yet they can no longer rely on those pre-orders as guaranteed income for a substandard product.  If the game is crap, the refunds ensure those who pre-ordered have a viable recourse.

[Fardragon]

Steam can easily keep track of people who make a habit of playing games for 1:59 and then returning them...

[Fardragon]

 

. Unless US have more crappy law than Europe. 

Edited July 3, 2015 by Fardragon

[Lexx]

 

 Gamers will soon start to demand the same from GOG and other digital outlets. 

 

GOG had refund policy months before STEAM. 

https://www.gog.com/support/website_help/money_back_guarantee

 

 

I think it's bad timing. Steam refund stuff came into the door like right before the games release, so everyone still had it in mind when this turd got released.