Microsoft XBox Self-Service Refund Initiative

[Cyan]

Microsoft Self-Service Refund Initiative details, which are currently in beta-testing in the Alpha ring of Xbox Insiders:
http://wccftech.com/xbox-windows-10-selfservice-refunds-launched/


indie developers are unhappy with the new refund program:

http://wccftech.com/the-chinese-room-xbox-refunds-bollocks/

http://segmentnext.com/2017/04/14/indie-developers-are-concerned-over-xbox-refund-policy/

 

[BRiT]

I haven't read their griefs yet, but my initial response is "Give me a fucking break. Stop producing shit and you have nothing to worry about."


After having read the article:

The Indie developer grief is that their games can be fully completed within 2 hours.


Please note the below conditions for requesting a self-service refund:

• Games and apps are eligible for self-service refunds within 14 days of purchase if you have less than 2 hours of play time across all accounts.
• DLC, season passes, and add-ons are not eligible for self-service refunds.
• The game or app must be downloaded and launched before requesting a self-service refund.
• You must wait for at least 1 day after the game or app’s release before requesting a self-service refund.
• Certain Windows 10 apps may not be eligible for self-service refunds.
• Microsoft reserves the right to block access for users who abuse self-service refunds.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It's the same complaint that indie developers on Steam had, and while some of the complaints are legitimate, it's mostly worked itself out. Yes, there are people that abuse the system. But people that genuinely like your game are unlikely to file for a refund. And a side effect of this is that people are more likely to take a chance on your game if they wouldn't have in the past.

Either way, huge kudos to Microsoft for stepping in and providing some consumer protection. Much like Steam, I'm sure there will be people that will complain that 14 days and 2 hours is too short, but it's a difficult balance to strike between doing right by the consumer and being fair to developers.

While it's not on the same level as a mandatory demo for any title sold (repeated refunds will trigger the abuse flag), it's a step in the right direction.

Regards,
SB

 

[Cyan]

It's the same complaint that indie developers on Steam had, and while some of the complaints are legitimate, it's mostly worked itself out. Yes, there are people that abuse the system. But people that genuinely like your game are unlikely to file for a refund. And a side effect of this is that people are more likely to take a chance on your game if they wouldn't have in the past.

Either way, huge kudos to Microsoft for stepping in and providing some consumer protection. Much like Steam, I'm sure there will be people that will complain that 14 days and 2 hours is too short, but it's a difficult balance to strike between doing right by the consumer and being fair to developers.

While it's not on the same level as a mandatory demo for any title sold (repeated refunds will trigger the abuse flag), it's a step in the right direction.

Regards,
SB

Taking into account the nature of console games and services, there might be abuses. I guess that for those who get the achievements and return the game, their achievements are going to get removed? Some achievement hunters might buy a game play it less than 2 hours and get many achievements for free. Because I can already see many people trying as many games as they can and get the achievements without paying a dime.

Then there are indie games that last very little time and aren't priced accordingly..

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Taking into account the nature of console games and services, there might be abuses. I guess that for those who get the achievements and return the game, their achievements are going to get removed? Some achievement hunters might buy a game play it less than 2 hours and get many achievements for free. Because I can already see many people trying as many games as they can and get the achievements without paying a dime.

Do these people really number enough to matter? But yeah, as you say, just remove achievements on a refunded game to solve that problem.

Then there are indie games that last very little time and aren't priced accordingly..

Then they'll have to price themselves accordingly.

It's great in principle. I wonder if it should be a bit smarter though, such as offering an optional demo instead? Some games might not even get started by the fifth hour! A two-hour enforced demo based on the opening two hours could be completely unrepresentative of what the player really gets, and could penalise developers of some games. A 15 minute demo could be offered for shorter experiences that shows them off without giving the entire game away.

And/or, all refunds must be accompanied with a well written, properly punctuated, minimum length review explaining why a refund was asked for. This review would then act as a warning/explanation for other potential customers, reducing the chance of people picking up a game they wouldn't like and then asking for a refund.

Number of refunds asked for should definitely be listed with the game though. A very high refund request should be public knowledge, pointing to a crap game, a game of poor value, or showing people are cheaping out on shorter experiences (thus notifying devs not to bother).

 

[Cyan]

Do these people really number enough to matter? But yeah, as you say, just remove achievements on a refunded game to solve that problem.

Then they'll have to price themselves accordingly.

some of my friends are quite legal people but they are achievement hunters and want a 200000 plus score in their gamertag.I can already see others abusing the system and getting the sweet score if they manage to find the easiest path to get them.

The issue with removing the achievements is that it might be unfair to temporal buyers because renters of games get all the achievements they want and cant get removed.

Then they'll have to price themselves accordingly.

indies priced right and not indies that cost 7€ an hour, or dumb games so achievement hunters get an easy score of 1000G and look professional.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The issue with removing the achievements is that it might be unfair to temporal buyers because renters of games get all the achievements they want and cant get removed.

This is a policy to protect consumers for bad download purchases. To avoid abusers of that system alone, tie achievements to ownership. The whole achievement meta can be ignored for policy decision-makers because it's a small sub-culture that can manage itself; eg. Achievement Whores will have to rent or buy discs and then resell the game. Or actually buy the game and keep the game and pay the creator for the achievements they've enabled (assuming the game has no value beyond being a source of Gamerscore)...

 

[BRiT]

No. That's a huge mess. Can't tie achievements to ownership. There is massive trouble with Games-With-Gold titles since technically you only own those games as long as you have GOLD Membership. The same applies to EA Access. And Xbox Games Pass.

You'd have to tie achievement reversal to refunds.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You'd have to tie achievement reversal to refunds.

That's what I meant. When a title is refunded, remove the achievements and GS. Didn't meant to suggest if you sell a disc, your Achievements are wiped!

 

[rokkerkory]

It's a good small step in a pro consumer way. It looks like a 2nd place or hungry MS is best MS

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It's a good small step in a pro consumer way. It looks like a 2nd place or hungry MS is best MS

And that is why competition is good. Competition drives companies to either innovate or implement things that will make their product more attractive to consumers. While nothing prevents a company with little to no competition from innovating or implementing consumer friendly features and practices, they have little incentive to do so and history shows that often they won't bother to do it as long as they are in a position of dominance. There's always exceptions, of course, but those are fairly rare.

Regards,
SB

 

[Cyan]

No. That's a huge mess. Can't tie achievements to ownership. There is massive trouble with Games-With-Gold titles since technically you only own those games as long as you have GOLD Membership. The same applies to EA Access. And Xbox Games Pass.

You'd have to tie achievement reversal to refunds.

I find that more fair, because renters aren't giving developers any money, while refunded players have the potential to bring some revenue. That could also mean that say, hypothetically Shifty could be an achievement hunter and have a enslaved chinese lad getting the achievements for his account.

 

[eastmen]

Simple solution is to make longer games. This is only a pro for consumers

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Nope. It encourages filler and padding to reach a longer gameplay metric. Quality should count above quantity - a 2 hour super-mega-ultimate experience is worth the money. Heck, how many VR devs would have made any money at all if users could get a refund after two hours??

 

[3dilettante]

Nope. It encourages filler and padding to reach a longer gameplay metric. Quality should count above quantity - a 2 hour super-mega-ultimate experience is worth the money. Heck, how many VR devs would have made any money at all if users could get a refund after two hours??

If the profitability of VR is that tenuous, and I think it may be, then that is a problem that VR will survive or founder on. I've seen the point made in some articles/reviews that VR may unfortunately need a refund policy more than most types due to the variance in how gamers physically acclimate to games.

Individual reviews have one game that is playable without problem for one reviewer being temporarily incapacitating to another. It's a genre where a significant fraction of the market won't be able to stomach a product, but they won't know until it is bought. If VR as a market means that for many buyers, the odds of buying a game that causes physical misery approaches one after a relatively small number of non-refundable purchases, it's a risk that will be priced into what they will pay in advance or it will be paid by the longevity of VR as a whole.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

By my post, I meant VR experiences are all short and everyone could effectively play them for free. Asking them to be longer doesn't recognise the experimental nature of the projects or the costs and risks involved, and it's unfair and unrealistic to ask devs to 'just make things longer'.

 

[Davros]

I haven't read their griefs yet,

You should, they make some really valid points

Anyway it's nice that gamers are finally getting some protection
After years of publishers basically claiming they have no rights
eg: eula's that state no refunds even when the law says otherwise

 

[3dilettante]

By my post, I meant VR experiences are all short and everyone could effectively play them for free. Asking them to be longer doesn't recognise the experimental nature of the projects or the costs and risks involved, and it's unfair and unrealistic to ask devs to 'just make things longer'.

There is going to be some percentage of abuse, but the numbers from Steam seem to indicate that only a minority ask for refunds, and a small one at that. I think serial abusers of the process would be a subset of that minority.

Perhaps there's some kind of way to formalize making "substantive progress/utilization" of the product, perhaps by tracking achievements--actually a significant motivation for having them already. However, even that might not be entirely fair from a product-refund standpoint.
For example, someone can eat a whole meal at a restaurant but still ask for compensation if they get food poisoning. That might be too extreme a comparison for VR, but even a milder version of this means people may feel justified in asking for something more in return than for other games that cannot make them ill.

I'd hope there is some form of reasonable adjustment that can be made so that the niche can be sustained. It might be reasonable to ask if there is a threshold where catering to VR's weaker fundamentals overlaps too much with shielding some of the unsavory elements of game purchasing in general, however.

 

[BRiT]

You should, they make some really valid points

Anyway it's nice that gamers are finally getting some protection
After years of publishers basically claiming they have no rights
eg: eula's that state no refunds even when the law says otherwise

If you read the rest of my post, you'd see that I did read it.

My original response still stands, "Stop making shit products and you have no problem."

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Nope. It encourages filler and padding to reach a longer gameplay metric. Quality should count above quantity - a 2 hour super-mega-ultimate experience is worth the money. Heck, how many VR devs would have made any money at all if users could get a refund after two hours??

There's a large difference here, however. There are plenty of PC indie games that are less than 2 hours in length and for most part if the buyer found the experience enjoyable and worth what they paid for it, they won't ask for a refund.

The problem with VR right now is that the experiences are not only short, but they are in many cases highly over-priced for the experience that they provide leading to consumers not feeling like they got their money's worth from the experience. This then ultimately starts to sour them on the whole VR thing making them less inclined to purchase future VR titles. And that's just for the actual "good" titles. There's also plenty of VR shovelware on Steam.

That's a problem that VR has to deal with. It's expensive to make feature (story, experience, presentation) rich VR experiences and the user base is still really small. VR titles are thus short (low development funds) and priced extremely high for the amount of content and experience (from a user POV) in many cases.

It's unlike most indie development in that it's harder to, say, make sacrifices to graphics quality in order to boost the story and game experience thus reducing development costs while providing a rich and entertaining gaming experience. And the small user base means that it's hard to price your title appropriately to the level of content and experience provided as you want to try to recoup your investment.

Ultimately is it better for the user to feel satisfied with their purchase or for them to feel unhappy that they are stuck with a purchase that didn't provide content worth the price attached to the product? Which if they are unhappy means that they may then be less inclined to invest in that genre (VR)?

While there is abuse, people that feel a less than 2 hour title was enjoyable and worth the money almost never claim a refund for the title.

Also, people that habitually abuse the refund policy get flagged and lose their ability to claim automatic refunds.

Regards,
SB