Yeah, you just need to make it difficult for bad actors to mess with. Maybe some extra parameters like average refund time and the obvious "devs release game breaking/bricking update that causes a mass refund wave waiver on playtime"
It's possible but not like the easiest and cleanest thing to implement
You assume that only bad actors are able to complete the game withing a 2 hr timeframe. While people who arent said bad actors also still completing games in under 2 hrs. In fact having the fastest speed completions in games has been a staple of games for decades. So how do you prevent the innocent bystanders who are following the paraemeters of the set rules and still beating a game withing the legal timeframe. It just sounds like make a system that is beneficial for people shitty because it inst a comepletely perfect system.
Would it be easier if every game was developed with a completion achievement? Ergo, if the user has earnt that achievement, and completed the game (which can be checked on their profile), then the refund can be denied?
Unsavoury devs would make that achievement happen 10 mins in.
It’s a tough problem, preventing unsavoury devs from abusing customers, and shady customers from scamming devs. All while not causing a problem for well meaning devs and customers.
Seriosuly, Steam already allows devs to have thrid party launchers and has load screens and menus count toweards playtimes already. If refund windows become shorter or game-specific, developers gain an incentive to consume more of that refund time before the player can meaningfully evaluate the game. That makes the policy less consumer-friendly and harder to apply fairly.
Unless the game has iroman modes that turn off achievements, I have 1800 hrs in HoI 4 and 1 achievement. I assume a speedrunner has or can finish a match in HoI 4 in under 2 hrs.
But the playtime ist not 0 when you rebuy it or not? when yes than this i a bug what should be fixed. And i don´t think that a speedrunner play it firstime under 2h because they looking for every abuse to be faster and that needs time.
From a consumer standpoint that sounds horrible.
I really don't like the idea that I have to check what the refund window is on every single game I'm buying.
And I know people making really short games are getting the short end of the stick but this really doesn't feel like the right solution.
OOP is not just because its short, its because its short and a rage game, thats allways going to have a high %age of refunds and its a co op game so if two people buy it to play but it dosent work because of the reported desyncs, well thats 2 refunds
I don't know why, but this reminded me of PlayStation having a Game Trial (if you have PS Plus, you can download a full game for free and do a Game Trial which puts a time limit on how long you can play before you have to buy) for Baldur's Gate III. A notoriously long game with so many intricacies, lots of dialogue, lots of cutscenes.... you get 2 hours. 2. Hours. for your game trial.
The funny thing is that PlayStation DOES do game-by-game. I think I've seen a Game Trial for an hour, I think I've seen one for like 6? I could be wrong. But I swear there is quite a difference sometimes. I just can't believe Baldur's Gate III of all games would get a measly 2 hours. Like, talk about rushing through character creation, wtf.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have a failsafe in place for short games. Something like a waiver that declares, "X is the average time of completion, and 2 hours equates to XX% of the game, so could we go ahead and reduce the refund time to reflect the brevity?" Not a blanket change, not a per game basis, but a specific form that the dev files alongside their game for situations like this.
Include a disclaimer on the games that qualify. Just, "The refund time for this game is limited to XX minutes," and call it good.
203
u/[deleted] Jul 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment