So how many games did you get returned to steam?

fair enought hahah, just buy the standalone then ;D

Did you try by that refund tool or by creating a ticket? I heard that refund tool automatly refuses refunds when you have game longer that 2 weeks/played longer than 2 hours. Still, some dude here stated that he got refund that was previously refused by auto tool when he created a ticket to support.

give it a try, you have nothing to lose (except some time creating a ticket).

I tried to return DayZ, but my request was not accepted :/

No, that's called turning into a woman.

I know the point of it,just because i know the point does not mean i have to agree with it,but thanks for pointing out the obvious like i did not know what it was meant for and i know it is for any reason but again thanks for reminding me.

I know it can be a waste to buy something you do not like but is that one of the risk of buying something,? Not working i understand,but buyers remorse i do not do or agree with,people should be more careful with there money and make better choices.None the less just because i do not agree with it again as i said before does not mean it is wrong it still just how i feel and my opinion and i think it is wrong to return something you did not like,that should be the chance you take with buying a game,I have bought tvs,pc parts and so on that months later i ended up not liking and i never asked for a refund based on it was not what i expected.Next time i just made better choices.

Though before digital games did have a refund,if you did not agree with the EULA and you had a receipt you had 90 days to return it for a refund to the publisher or whatever was in the EULA for returns.Of course unopened a lot times you could return it to the store,but the return after open was only to send it back to the publisher and was meant if you did not agree with EULA not buyers remorse,or the disc was defective.

+1

I kind of agree with you, but I think that it's not too bad to refund a game you don't like (you can't have more then two hours on it, so it is restricted anyway), as long as you don't do it often. I've refunded once, because the game was just boring and not at all what I expected. But 20 games, that's just abusive.

nah, he will probably get his refund option blocked at some point.
i don't think it will affect anyone else (except for filling steam support with refund tickets and delaying everyone else).

I wonder exactly why you bought them, then?
You do realise this is referring to the refund feature, and not the "remove from my library" thing, right?

Because it was full with bugs, and the fun was over with the end of the story. Obsidian made it again: A great, but very-very, almost unplayable game with tons of glitch. No way it's better than Fallout 3. In my opinion.

o.O Refunding a game promotes irresponsibility, while shipping broken games are perfectly okay from the developer's part? Not to mention that smaller games have great issues with fixes, or the whole game can be unplayeable because it simply doesn't like one's hardware - I think after we've seen how the majority of devs and games doesn't really care about fixing issues, it's really a bold statement that they'll eventually get fixed.

There is no guarantee that a bug will be fixed, much less a much larger issue. In the case of more reputable developers (or those headed by good publishers / funders), the chances are far better, but you're forgetting this is the gaming industry we're talking about. There's a weird trend of creators farting on their customer bases. Huge names like EA and Activision still have games with bugs that have been ongoing since their launch, and not just small ones. Ones that cause all NPCs to be "no_name" or "error" (Spore). Ones that cause the game to slowly grind to a literal halt as if there is a memory leak, but because you simply have a sound card they can't be bothered to properly support (Prototype). Smaller developers sometimes just outright vanish without a word, with an alarming trend towards leaving their games incomplete, or selling games as if they are in their "1.0" state while still lacking blatant core considerations (such as Towns) or promising the world but then delivering nothing but the bare minimum to avoid action (Kinetic Void). This is why in the gaming industry, instead of looking at the names attached to a game and thinking of them like a brands, people look at names and remember exactly how many horrible things they were part of lately, heh. ;P

And yes, I think that's a damn good reason to get a refund and then buy it later when it's fixed. The 'faith' option doesn't always pan out, and little headlines of games bombing or screwing people over are fairly common. I really don't get why you would be down on people not taking unnecessary risks. Having a backlog so big that it puts you outside of the typical refund period isn't an argument against refunds, it's an argument against having a backlog.

And I'm not trying to guilt you at all. Merely stating fact. If a product is revealed to be faulty, and you do not refund it, then the creator has far less reason to adjust their work ethic or address the issue. They already have your money. Some just don't care that much about their reputation. Positive reinforcement is a thing, even if it isn't quite as straightforward as that in commerce, the underlying principal remains. I don't care if you play by faith or not, I was just pointing it out and not trying to crusade against your choice, as confusing to me as it is.

"I think refunding digital goods teaches people how NOT to be responsible for your actions"
The customer is NOT responsible for the shortcomings of the devs. :-V
Believing a selling product to be functional upon arrival is in no way a form of stupidity in any way. The only way it could be interpreted as such, is if you're aware of how many 'bad' products are issued in the gaming industry, in which case you are shifting the attention away from holding the developers accountable for their behaviour, and instead making it the customer's fault, and TBH that's just plain ass-backwards.

Yeah, checking out reviews and demos can help, but demos are often deliberately sculpted scenarios used to lead a sale, and can be more deliberately polished to land a sale, and the far smaller size means they can give an impression of a 'content complete' game without any such assurance. Checking reviews can help, but any for-profit site or personality can easily be bought or swayed by bias, and user-reviews can easily be seeded by bots, and STILL doesn't touch on the fact that incompatibilities still happen. The general response to someone saying "I can't play this game, it lags badly and my PC is capable of playing Crysis 8 on Turbo-Maximum settings at 60103fps!" is "lol ur comp sux git gud" or "never had that problem, resinstall windows", accompanied by a sweep of voting down. A popular game often finds negative reviews reflexively voted down, because people seem to think that the voting is for "I agree/disagree with this!" and not "I find this informative/useful/not".

Again, Prototype was a fine example of this. After five months of waiting for a patch, it was the forumgoers who figured out a work-around, but it involved deleting one of the sound archives, and was only a partial fix. Throughout that waiting period, people kept slowly piling up in the thread hoping for a fix. If the issue isn't widespread (or is suppressed), such threads are likely to get buried and not show up on a casual google of a game. You can show all the preparation and forethought that you want, but unless you're a psychic, you really cannot be certain. Desura was pretty bad for this, because even normal comments could be downvoted into deletion, and leaving a warning or bug alert on a game's page would often see the fans silence you in short order.

Also : "no one forces anyone to buy anything. It's all voluntary"?
Oh look, that little chestnut. Cute. I wonder if there has ever been a single time that this canned response has ever actually been relevant or lucid to the discussion at hand. We're not discussing whether you're being held at gunpoint to buy videogames.

All in all, I get this feeling you're mixing the subject of refunds in normal usage with the subject of refunds because you don't like the game. If only because I have a hard time believing you can really be this set against refunds as a whole.

How is it rewarding bad behaviour? Because the creator of a broken or falsely advertised game keeps your money, and is therefore shown that what they did is 'okay'. The reward is in, y'know, getting and keeping money, and having spent less time and resources making a complete or stable product. If they get the same amount of money but with less effort, they're more likely to repeat their bad behavior in future. Their bad behavior is reinforced. I don't get what's so hard to understand about this?

Expecting a product to work as intended when you pay for it does not make gamers 'spoiled', that's just absurd. Though refunds for "I didn't really like it" are a different subject, though. Not sure what to think about those.

"I think both sides should be just as much as fault,you sell a busted game be prepared for what is to come,buy a busted game prepare for what is to come"
No. Just... no. There is no merit or logic behind 'if you are wronged, totally ignore it and do nothing'.
Why exactly should someone just do nothing? What possible reason would they have to do that, much less tell others the same?