Valve fined $3 million AUS for refusing refunds and misleading customers - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;51573858]its not hard to uinderstand. when a dev sells keys direct to a consumer and the consumer refunds, the dev loses out on the money just as the consumer loses out on the game. i dont think the consumer "experiencing" the game before refunding it is an issue. you gotta "experience" the game in order to judge it.[/QUOTE] clearly it is because you're not understanding your very own points you are making apple loses no money by you trading in your iphone. devs do lose money when people refund their games. you said its nothing like chips because you digest them, despite that making absolutely no sense because you can "digest" games in the same way. Or are games not products that you can consume? Eg, no point in invoking any form of consumer protection on them, completely making your point mute again?

[QUOTE=_Axel;51573906]While illegal in principle it isn't systematically prosecuted. The end result is the same, either way people do it and get away with it, if that's not an argument against social security why should it be an argument against refunds?[/QUOTE] Because no one is going to stop people from refunding games they're just bored of. When people take advantage of social security and stuff, it at least requires effort, you often have to falsify documents and it can be kinda risky in the long run. None of that applies to refunds, meaning that a large amount of people WILL take advantage of it and the people that it will hurt the most will in turn be the consumers because the publishers who don't want to give away free games will simply refuse to sell their games on that service.

essentially in nautsabes' mind other people exist only to do things for him and they shouldn't get to benefit from the transaction

I don't get the problem with extending the refund time. When I buy a game at gamestop I can refund it up to a month from purchase. Nobody complains about gamestops refund policy, and it's hardly abused.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51573909]devs do lose money when people refund their games.[/QUOTE] They don't lose money that they would have if you hadn't bought it though? I don't see your point. Devs "lose money" the same way they would if someone pirate their game, it's not so much a loss as it is a potential sale not happening.

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;51573920]I don't get the problem with extending the refund time. When I buy a game at gamestop I can refund it up to a month from purchase. Nobody complains about gamestops refund policy, and it's hardly abused.[/QUOTE] because, as REPEATEDLY stated in this thread, there's a difference between physical games and digital ones

do you think this is why steam is down?

[QUOTE=_Axel;51573927]They don't lose money that they would have if you hadn't bought it though? I don't see your point. Devs "lose money" the same way they would if someone pirate their game, it's not so much a loss as it is a potential sale not happening.[/QUOTE] Except that they do actually lose money. They sold the game, they got that money from the sale. Suddenly the game gets refunded and that money is taken out of their pocket.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51573927]They don't lose money that they would have if you hadn't bought it though? I don't see your point. Devs "lose money" the same way they would if someone pirate their game, it's not so much a loss as it is a potential sale not happening.[/QUOTE] Except making games isn't free so thats not a valid point. Devs do lose out when they spend time and money to make a game for someone to play it then refund it. Refunding is downright getting your money back how is that NOT losing money

[QUOTE=simkas;51573915]Because no one is going to stop people from refunding games they're just bored of. When people take advantage of social security and stuff, it at least requires effort, you often have to falsify documents and it can be kinda risky in the long run. None of that applies to refunds, meaning that a large amount of people WILL take advantage of it and the people that it will hurt the most will in turn be the consumers because the publishers who don't want to give away free games will simply refuse to sell their games on that service.[/QUOTE] But I was responding to a post which said that "even if it doesn't bankrupt devs they shouldn't be allowed to do it" while talking about Tripwire not being significantly harmed by people who maliciously refunded their game. I'm specifically talking about a case where what you're describing didn't happen.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51573941]But I was responding to a post which said that "even if it doesn't bankrupt devs they shouldn't be allowed to do it" while talking about Tripwire not being significantly harmed by people who maliciously refunded their game. I'm specifically talking about a case where what you're describing didn't happen.[/QUOTE] Maybe Tripwire wasn't harmed by it because they're a big company and the loss that they had wasn't that significant, but other smaller developers who just barely scraped by putting all their money into the game and released it on steam for 5$ might suffer a huge loss and would get very hurt from something like that.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51573939]Except making games isn't free so thats not a valid point. Devs do lose out when they spend time and money to make a game for someone to play it then refund it. Refunding is downright getting your money back how is that NOT losing money[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is while it does disadvantage the developer, your chips comparison is invalid since a company can't retrieve the food they sold and thus do have to keep their compensation for giving them away, hence why refunds aren't possible. In the case of digital games there's nothing to retrieve, they didn't give anything other than the right to play their game, it's a service not a ware.

[QUOTE=Nak;51573908]A game can be compared to a movie/e-book. Most of them got an interactive story/game-play. There have to be drawn a line, as a game is a form of experience. Since you want to talk about physical things, let me try and explain it simply: [quote]A) - You're at a restaurant and order a burger. - Its really bad food - You stop after the first bite and get a refund for the meal. (like the 2 hour limit) B) - You're at a restaurant and order a burger. - Its really bad food - You eat everything on the plate and then ask for a refund. (Finishing the game and then refund)[/quote] What is fair?[/QUOTE] As someone who has worked in restaurants, people do the latter and actually get refunds. Pisses me off to no end.

[QUOTE=sipderbat;51573932]do you think this is why steam is down?[/QUOTE] That would be the pettiest thing for Valve to do.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51573961]What I'm saying is while it does disadvantage the developer, your chips comparison is invalid since a company can't retrieve the food they sold and thus do have to keep their compensation for giving them away, hence why refunds aren't possible. In the case of digital games there's nothing to retrieve, they didn't give anything other than the right to play their game, it's a service not a ware.[/QUOTE] but according to you the whole point of a comparison is for different things. game developers can't undo the experience and entertainment you received from a game hence why you shouldn't be able to refund a game you put many hours into.

[QUOTE=simkas;51573953]Maybe Tripwire wasn't harmed by it because they're a big company and the loss that they had wasn't that significant, but other smaller developers who just barely scraped by putting all their money into the game and released it on steam for 5$ might suffer a huge loss and would get very hurt from something like that.[/QUOTE] The relative loss would be proportional to the amount of players who refunded the game after playing it without any issue. Are players more likely to refund low-priced indie games than they are to refund 60$ blockbusters? I would think the opposite. The reason indie devs were more harmed by the steam refund policy than bigger ones is that the restriction for unconditional refunds is a 2 hour time limit, which a lot of indie games fall short of. If the time limit is increased or removed those games wouldn't be affected.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51573997]The relative loss would be proportional to the amount of players who refunded the game after playing it without any issue. Are players more likely to refund low-priced indie games than they are to refund 60$ blockbusters? I would think the opposite. The reason indie devs were more harmed by the steam refund policy than bigger ones is that the restriction for unconditional refunds is a 2 hour time limit, which a lot of indie games fall short of. If the time limit is increased or removed those games wouldn't be affected.[/QUOTE] well, until australia gets its way and people are allowed unrestricted refunds and yes, it will be abused as it has already been abused.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51573995]but according to you the whole point of a comparison is for different things.[/quote] Yes but I explained why the difference makes one situation work one way and not the other, I didn't just say "chips and videogames are not the same thing so your argument is invalid." [Quote]game developers can't undo the experience and entertainment you received from a game hence why you shouldn't be able to refund a game you put many hours into.[/QUOTE] Yes but they didn't spend any more money to give you the experience and entertainment you received than they would if you hadn't played the game. There is no cost to bear for that specific experience. The reason chips manufacturers don't want to refund consumed chips is not that they're upset that you'd get to experience the taste of chips without paying for it, it's that they can't sell the bag of chips that you ate, which cost money to produce, to another person, which they could have done if you hadn't consumed it, hence the lost money.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51574020]Yes but I explained why the difference makes one situation work one way and not the other, I didn't just say "chips and videogames are not the same thing so your argument is invalid." Yes but they didn't spend any more money to give you the experience and entertainment you received than they would if you hadn't played the game. There is no cost to bear for that specific experience. The reason chips manufacturers don't want to refund consumed chips is not that they're upset that you'd get to experience the taste of chips without paying for it, it's that they can't sell the bag of chips that you are, which cost money to produce, to another person, hence the cost.[/QUOTE] so you're saying games don't cost money to produce? how is it suddenly ok for people to steal games

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51572469]Good, if you ask me it's probably a drop in the water compared to what they make in an hour but Valve needs to start facing actual consequences for their bullshit they're too fuckin' fat and happy[/QUOTE] This revenge fantasy stuff is starting to get really weird.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51574020]Yes but they didn't spend any more money to give you the experience and entertainment you received than they would if you hadn't played the game. There is no cost to bear for that specific experience.[/QUOTE] What? Yes, they did, that's the whole fucking game. The experience of you playing the game IS the game. The game is made up entirely of the experience that you gained from it. Actually, how's this for a comparison. You go to a movie theater, you buy a ticket, you watch the full movie, then you go back, give the ticket (as in, the piece of paper) back and say "hey I gave you ticket back, why don't you give me a refund"? That's what returning a game you've already played and experienced is like.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51574028]so you're saying games don't cost money to produce? how is it suddenly ok for people to steal games[/QUOTE] They do cost money to produce but that cost doesn't scale with the amount of people who experienced it, unlike the food industry. Stealing a digital game doesn't cost the developers anything since what they sell you is the right to play the game, not the game itself. Granting you that right doesn't cost them anything. It's a lost potential sale, not lost money. Not saying either are okay, but those aren't the same thing.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51574088]They do cost money to produce but that cost doesn't scale with the amount of people who experienced, unlike the food industry. Stealing a digital game doesn't cost the developers anything since what they sell you is the right to play the game, not the game itself. Granting you that right doesn't cost them anything. It's a lost potential sale, not lost money. Not saying either are okay, but those aren't the same thing.[/QUOTE] How the fuck is it a "potential sale"? They sold you the game, you gave them money for the game, the developers now have that money. You get a refund, that money literally comes out of the developers pocket, they LITERALLY and PHYSICALLY lost the money that they made from selling you the game.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51574088]They do cost money to produce but that cost doesn't scale with the amount of people who experienced it, unlike the food industry. Stealing a digital game doesn't cost the developers anything since what they sell you is the right to play the game, not the game itself. Granting you that right doesn't cost them anything. It's a lost potential sale, not lost money. Not saying either are okay, but those aren't the same thing.[/QUOTE] So how exactly is it do you propose developers are paid if you can just refund games whenever?

[QUOTE=simkas;51574078]What? Yes, they did, that's the whole fucking game. The experience of you playing the game IS the game. The game is made up entirely of the experience that you gained from it.[/quote] They spent money to create the game, not to give it to you. Once they created it, there's no additional cost for distributing it. Whether a thousand or a billion people buy it doesn't change their production cost. Thus people refunding it isn't lost money, it's lost potential sales. [Quote]Actually, how's this for a comparison. You go to a movie theater, you buy a ticket, you watch the full movie, then you go back, give the ticket (as in, the piece of paper) back and say "hey I gave you ticket back, why don't you give me a refund"? That's what returning a game you've already played and experienced is like.[/QUOTE] Well you're still partly paying to get access to the theater and a seat, which have to be maintained and cleaned up because of your attending, so there is a certain cost to it but it's tiny compared to the ticket price. I'M say that's a more apt comparison, yes.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51574129]They spent money to create the game, not to give it to you. Once they created it, there's no additional cost for distributing it. Whether a thousand or a billion people buy it doesn't change their production cost. Thus people refunding it isn't lost money, it's lost potential sales.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. They get the money, then people refund, so they have to give the money back, thats how it works.

[QUOTE=simkas;51574095]How the fuck is it a "potential sale"? They sold you the game, you gave them money for the game, the developers now have that money. You get a refund, that money literally comes out of the developers pocket, they LITERALLY and PHYSICALLY lost the money that they made from selling you the game.[/QUOTE] But they wouldn't have had the money they got from you if you hadn't bought the game in the first place.

imagine if we lived in a world where "potential sales" equated to "people buying and then demanding their money back"

[QUOTE=_Axel;51574149]But they wouldn't have had the money they got from you if you hadn't bought the game in the first place.[/QUOTE] What? No, the money goes to them, then its refunded if you refund it, so its taken from them. What the fuck.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51574141]Uh, no. They get the money, then people refund, so they have to give the money back, thats how it works.[/QUOTE] Money which they wouldn't have had if the people who refund hadn't bought the game to begin with. There's no distribution costs that leaves them worse off than if they hadn't sold them the game in the first place.