›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Epic Games Store Now Matches Steam's Refund Policy - MMORPG.com News

SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
edited January 2019 in News & Features Discussion

imageEpic Games Store Now Matches Steam's Refund Policy - MMORPG.com News

Epic has announced that its Games Store will now match Steam's refund policy. This means that players have two weeks to request a refund from date of purchase and must have not played more than two hours. Epic's Director of Publishing Strategy Sergey Galyonkin made the announcement earlier today via Twitter.

Read the full story here



¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


Post edited by SBFord on
«134

Comments

  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
    Well, well, well. Interestinger and interestinger. ;)
    Asheram[Deleted User]BlueThunderBearceh430rojoArcueidTokkenSabracConstantineMerusAgent_Josephwingoodand 3 others.


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • mussolinimussolini Member UncommonPosts: 200
    Really should set a bit more than 2h. More times happened with a new game I bought it tried to play but queue and maintances was take more so actually I didnt try the game but lost my money...
    AlverantAsheramTillerbartoni33wingoodNoxiasgastovski1
  • AlverantAlverant Member RarePosts: 1,320
    Let's see how much they honor it. We already know businesses will lie on their refund page if it means more sales.
    GdemamiNextrix
  • AsheramAsheram Member EpicPosts: 5,071
    Ok now I am interested is piqued.
    SBFord
  • KalafaxKalafax Member UncommonPosts: 591
    Everyone is really doing everything they can to take away from Steam.

    Mess with the best, Die like the rest

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 32,003
    Kalafax said:
    Everyone is really doing everything they can to take away from Steam.
    Competition is a good thing. If this means Steam has to step it up and do somethings better then that's good for the consumer.


    SBFordAsheramAeanderOctagon7711MadFrenchierojoArcueidTenohiraPanserbjorne39NextrixSabracand 13 others.
    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • WBadgerWBadger Member RarePosts: 374
    edited January 2019
    Still wholly against opt-in reviews. Review bombing sucks, sure. It generally doesn't happen though unless the developers somehow paint a target on themselves by doing something that would go against consumers. Reviews are how the consumers are informed about any misconceptions, lost translations, or outright bullshit on a game that differs from what its advertised as by developers on their store page. Review bombing is a massive minority of what happens to games because most game developers know when and where to be professional and shut their pieholes when they see a review they disagree with. Opt-in reviews is the same as saying "We care more about stealing developers from competition then protecting future customers."
    NextrixNoxias
  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
    edited January 2019
    Wankyudo said:
    developers somehow paint a target on themselves by doing something that would go against consumers.
    I don't think that that's completely true. Games have been review bombed on Steam for making a change that some in the community didn't like that has nothing to do with the power of a consumer, but that has more to do with players feeling entitled to their way. Steam's approach to longitudinal graphs of review scores is a good thing, however.

    Before Steam, people didn't get to write user reviews that lived in perpetuity on a game's page and I don't think any company bears the burden of including them. It's not like happy or disgruntled player reviews are tough to find. :D
    MrMelGibsongastovski1infomatz


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 7,836
    edited January 2019
    SBFord said:
    Wankyudo said:
    developers somehow paint a target on themselves by doing something that would go against consumers.
    I don't think that that's completely true. Games have been review bombed on Steam for making a change that some in the community didn't like that has nothing to do with the power of a consumer, but that has more to do with players feeling entitled to their way. Steam's approach to longitudinal graphs of review scores is a good thing, however.

    Before Steam, people didn't get to write user reviews that lived in perpetuity on a game's page and I don't think any company bears the burden of including them. It's not like happy or disgruntled player reviews are tough to find. :D
    But is that "entitlement" not justified criticism in its own way? Would not review bombing a game for, say... adding in pay to win lootboxes after the fact be completely fair, as it does lessen the game and change the customer experience?

    It really depends on the controversy the game is being review bombed for. Steam sees a lot of stupid, harmful review bombs, such as Chinese steam users review bombing the ratings of great games globally for not localizing games for them. However, it also sees a lot of well-deserved negative reviews.
    NextrixNepheth
  • ScellowScellow Member RarePosts: 398
    against review bombing, lol china level marketing, censorship++
    Agent_Joseph
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 9,000
    Epic Games Clones.
    [Deleted User]MrMelGibson

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • zaberfangxzaberfangx Member UncommonPosts: 1,796
    edited January 2019

    Sovrath said:


    Kalafax said:

    Everyone is really doing everything they can to take away from Steam.


    Competition is a good thing. If this means Steam has to step it up and do somethings better then that's good for the consumer.





    I do agree about Competition, but Steam still a lot of ways better. Steam is not going stop epic baiting companies to come over to the epic store. Even if Steam and Epic are 1 to 1 on option and setting. Companies will still put their game on both, unless money drop on their lap. More my question how will Epic deal with censorship on their store down the line. Pick and Choose games they feel they know better what people like than letting people pick for them self like what Steam is doing.
  • HeretiqueHeretique Member RarePosts: 1,535
    Pretty much was obvious they would go down this route.
    TokkenwingoodTacticalZombehgastovski1
  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,908
    Wankyudo said:
     Review bombing is a massive minority of what happens to games because most game developers know when and where to be professional and shut their pieholes when they see a review they disagree with.
    See... I find to hard to rationalise review bombing as a thing, as an advocate of free speech I mean. It's basically a group seeking to economically sanction others for expressing an opinion that they don't agree with. I bet a lot of people that do it would claim to be pro free speech as well.

    I mean, if a game sucks, by all means, criticise it on it's own merits, but bombing a solid game for the political views of the creators is bad.

    As I see it, anyhow.
    MadFrenchie[Deleted User]LiljnawingoodMrMelGibsoninfomatz
  • WBadgerWBadger Member RarePosts: 374
    SBFord said:
    Wankyudo said:
    developers somehow paint a target on themselves by doing something that would go against consumers.
    I don't think that that's completely true. Games have been review bombed on Steam for making a change that some in the community didn't like that has nothing to do with the power of a consumer, but that has more to do with players feeling entitled to their way. Steam's approach to longitudinal graphs of review scores is a good thing, however.

    Before Steam, people didn't get to write user reviews that lived in perpetuity on a game's page and I don't think any company bears the burden of including them. It's not like happy or disgruntled player reviews are tough to find. :D
    I know, thats why I said generally.  No question that gamer hate is a first world problem and a lot of times it's entitled little manbabies who are upset just because the game isn't their perfect game.  

    However, I disagree on the company bearing the burden of including the reviews.  If it was their own website selling their game, you can leave out all the reviews that you want and just include positive testimonials.  It's your page, your life, etc.  This is more equivalent though of a restaurant selling their food on say seamless or grubhub.  If you are putting yourself out onto a digital storefront, then I feel like it's perfectly fair for your game to be marred by your product's imperfections at face value.  If your game controls are clunky, or your graphics are from 1998, then by all means it should be something someone can see right on the front page and know "Ok, well...this may be ugly.  I don't want to get it/i'm willing to put up with it and give it a chance."

    Going back to the discussion of the evolution of words and phrases in one of the complaint threads on I think it was warframe where people were complaining about it not being an mmo; consumer protections are always going to be constantly evolving as well.  Before if you wanted to know if a movie or a play or a musical was good, you'd have to open up a newspaper and see the latest articles or reviews on it.  Then the internet came into play and now you got to search through different web articles on the play, then aggregate websites came into play and now you had a centralized hub, and now steam has made it so that you got to see if you wanted to spend money on the game right on the front page;  and some developers don't like that and so Epic is pandering to them by saying "Well, we know reviews being front page isn't something in developers best wishes; so you don't have to deal with it!" If you're going to make a game in modern times, I do feel it's your burden to evolve your skin to deal with modern consumer protection methods as well.
    SBFord
  • immoralthangimmoralthang Member RarePosts: 300
    edited January 2019
    Epic should really start making true exclusives besides Fortnite. A new Unreal Tournament would be a start.
  • BlueThunderBearBlueThunderBear Member RarePosts: 228

    immoralthang said:

    Epic should really start making true exclusives besides Fortnite. A new Unreal Tournament would be a start.



    Same could be said of valve
    SBFordKooturTacticalZombeh
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    edited January 2019
    This is a not a god thing,this is the bare minimum the EU union says they must honor.
    I already made these points several days ago,the other changes to the EU were to New Zealand and Australia because they were sued by those courts for not adhering to THEIR laws.

    I personally don't think Valve cares about anyone at all,they make so much money by doing literally nothing it is sickening.

    If we are going to open up a FAIR market then we need CONSUMER fair laws and not just bare minimum on the developer.

    Pretty sad really they won't budge one inch beyond what they are forced to do.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • zaberfangxzaberfangx Member UncommonPosts: 1,796
    Wizardry said:
    This is a not a god thing,this is the bare minimum the EU union says they must honor.
    I already made these points several days ago,the other changes to the EU were to New Zealand and Australia because they were sued by those courts for not adhering to THEIR laws.

    I personally don't think Valve cares about anyone at all,they make so much money by doing literally nothing it is sickening.

    If we are going to open up a FAIR market then we need CONSUMER fair laws and not just bare minimum on the developer.

    Pretty sad really they won't budge one inch beyond what they are forced to do.
    That is not True about Valve is doing nothing they have updated a lot their old games. Made a new game more coming soon. Supported Linux and Mac. Pushing new for a new VR headset, new chat UI. Supporting DKVK, proton adding controller support to tons of games that don't support it at all much much more. I won't say literally nothing if it's about half life 3 thats about it.
    Nextrix
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited January 2019
    Alverant said:
    Let's see how much they honor it. We already know businesses will lie on their refund page if it means more sales.
    Don't really think any court in the country would support them denying an otherwise duly-owed refund if the conditions for refund are clearly listed on the launcher or company's site and the customer qualified per those requirements.

    Saw some folks complaining about this trend of new launchers complain about the refund issue specifically and offer it as the reason they won't install any game not on Steam.  So, now that this is outta the way, will those folks give this launcher a go, or was it an excuse to bash on non-Steam launchers?  :o
    SBFord

    image
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,353
    mussolini said:
    Really should set a bit more than 2h. More times happened with a new game I bought it tried to play but queue and maintances was take more so actually I didnt try the game but lost my money...
    No, what they really need is a way to exclude time downloading a game or waiting for it to load or whatever from that 2 hours.
    eddieg50Kyleran
  • SlyLoKSlyLoK Member RarePosts: 2,698
    edited January 2019
    2 hours isn't enough time to decide whether you like the game or not. Needs to be a bit more. However it would be difficult when so many games can be beat 4 or 5 hours. Possibly take it on a game by game basis.
  • TheDarkrayneTheDarkrayne Member EpicPosts: 5,297
    They haven't done anything good or special here. Like Wiz said, they had to do this anyway to honour EU regulations.

    The real problem is that they didn't know about it before.. which shows they are quite slow on uptake and are really crap at researching laws.
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  • KoNaosukeKoNaosuke Member CommonPosts: 2
    I'm still on the fence in relation to the ethics of "review bombing". In one side, devs don't want their game to look bad, and sometimes they're bombarded without a real good reason. But in the other side, it's one of the few ways buyers have power to show when they aren't happy with something made with a game post-release, like the fiasco of GTA V and mods which is one of the examples come to my mind. I wonder how they will find a "solution" in this system which can be the most neutral, cause if they line to someone eventually they're going to hear complains.
Sign In or Register to comment.