I hate to say it, but the business model always affects the game design. The “meta” is to make a game that’s longer than 2 hours if you want to avoid this, or that the player otherwise won’t want to part with after that 2 hours is up.
If your game doesn’t provide more content than 2 hours that’s kinda on you IMO
And I say that as an indie game developer. Like it someone just thought it was neat to play for an hour then they were completely done touching my game… Why would I be shocked they refunded it? They might have refunded it because they expected… Dun dun dunnnn… More content?
It’s a fuck load of work to make a game. It is kinda ridiculous to go to all that trouble then just stop after making 2 hours of gameplay, like 2 hours total without even a good sandbox.
Eh, not every game needs more “content”. Clickolding and And Roger are, as I understand it, very good at what they do, but you can finish them both in an hour. It would probably be to their detriment to make them any longer.
It’s a fuck load of work to make a game. It is kinda ridiculous to go to all that trouble then just stop after making 2 hours of gameplay, like 2 hours total without even a good sandbox.
Not that it’s Steam’s fault, but this is the same way of thinking that has led to big budget, story focused games getting padded with repetitive fetch quests and annoying collectibles that unlock progression.
Yes, it’s a lot of work to make a game, but the only way to extend the play time of a story-focused single-player game without having to do even more work, is to water it down with low-effort filler content that reuses the expensive assets.
but this is the same way of thinking that has led to big budget, story focused games getting padded with repetitive fetch quests and annoying collectibles that unlock progression.
There are literally orders of magnitudes of difference between making an indie game last 3-4 hours vs a bloated AAA 100+ hour collectathon. Comparing the 2 isn’t an honest arguement
There are also orders of magnitude of difference in their staff levels and budgets. Both sides of the equation are relative. I don’t know of any techniques for creating good content quickly and inexpensively that only work for small indies and not for large AAA studios.
I 100% agree. I always refund every movie and music album under 2 hours as well. If they wanted to keep my money they should have added an extra hour of slop. /s
The Dark Queen of Mortholme is brilliant but takes usually no more than half an hour to play through.
I bought it understanding it’s length, but the art of the experience was what I wanted. It’s just not objectively true that a game needs to be longer to be worth your money.
I was just posting about this, and I agree, it’s absolutely amazing! Sometimes I just want a short experience.
It’s like there are less and less songs produced now that bother with an intro because streaming services demand that you should get to the chorus fast.
there will always be exceptions and innovation. One of the things that shaped They Might Be Giants style is they used to release songs via a telephone number and if they held a note too long the phone service would think it was a dial tone and hang up.
it is for sure bad taste, to refund a game you enjoyed. but it can’t be solved. adjusting time windows will only shift the problem…
however, i do not think this is a problem which needs solving. while it enables some frustration, i am pretty sure this feature makes more money than it looses: because players have this relatively generous refund model, they can take a risk in what they buy. that way players can properly test drive the games they buy and keep the ones which actually strike their fancy.
if that policy would not exist, i think many purchases just would not be made in the first place. especially in this economy.
I kinda love short games, I don’t have time to put 100 hours in every game I buy. I bought this game in part because it seemed like a bit of silly fun, and was priced appropriately.
As somebody who did it twice I learned there are usually 3 reasons why people do it:
- they are assholes
- the game was really disappointing inclusive the time window to finish / price for the game
- they want to see if they fan speed run zhr game and refund it. (For example portal 2)
Paddle Paddle Paddle, is a fun game and does not deserve that treatment. It also has a fun replay value with different friends :D
If someone doesn’t want to pay for your game they would just pirate it.
I get that’s a disappointment for the publisher seeing a sale and then seeing that sale dissapear. But AFAIK they do not have to do anything, Steam manages the refund for them, so it’s harmless.
No matter how well you try to adjust the window, I could just copy the game files in my computer, apply the crack if needed and be done with it. I could ask for a refund after just one minute if I wanted. So my advice would be, don’t worry about it. You will be paid, as always, by people who appreciate your work and want to give money to you, and, as always, some people will play your game for free.
I guess he should have checked to see how quickly one could beat the game before listing it for sale.
Shitty thing to do though, say it’s great, and then refund it
For a lot of people there needs to be a certain amount of perceived value per dollar. The article said the game is $5 full price. If I spent $5 and beat it in under 2 hours, I’d refund it too.
If it’s good enough that I finished it I’m gonna let the creator keep the money (and pay close attention to the reviews next time, because I agree that less than 2 hours is a little short for that amount of entertainment) and make myself feel better by treating it like a donation to a good cause.
5 bucks for two whole hours of entertainment? Seems like a steal
Cheaper than a movie!
I spent less than a quid for a game that only took 15 minutes. I never considered that I needed to refund it. If it was fun, it was worth the money.
The owner’s whining about it but they clearly have a success and overall profit. He needs to be more humble - so many other indie devs never have a breakout game. His worry over players getting enjoyment for free when devs asked for money is valid, though… It’s a difficult one. As for the alleged argument from some reviewers saying “games being completable under 2 hours should be free,” that’s obnoxious - I have completed €30 games like Left 4 Dead and Halo in 2 hours.
